Agenda item

Retrospective application to regularise the restoration and change of use of granary building to provide holiday accommodation and associated works.

Permit

Mr Young presented the report to the Committee. He drew attention to the Agenda Sheet which set out additional supporting information from the applicant.

Mr Young highlighted the site location and neighbouring properties. He confirmed the land the property was on, was in the ownership of the applicant. He outlined the curtilage of the property and highlighted the brick and flint wall.

Mr Young informed the Committee that the application included the proposal for one parking space.

Mr Young highlighted the shutter features on the property and explained these would be shut when the property was not in use. The roof light would have a blind installed to prevent light spillage. He showed the internal floor and highlighted the original beams which had been maintained as part of the development.  Mr Young showed pictures of the property and drew attention to the staddle stones which the property was built on.

There was no requirement for nitrate mitigation as the applicant had proposed to install a bio bubble. Mr Young confirmed Natural England had raised no objection.

The following representations were received;

Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council – statement read by Cllr Garrett

Mr Garrett – Objector

Mr Iain Macpherson – Objector

Mr Karl Seddon – Objector (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Peter Scot MBE – Supporter (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Jeremy Cox – Supporter (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr David James-Cheesman – Supporter (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mrs Sandra James – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – Ward Member

The Chairman invited Mr Whitty to clarify some comments made during the representations.

Mr Whitty clarified that no enforcement notice had been served on the property. In addition, he confirmed the issue of Permitted Development rights were not relevant to the application and should be disregarded. He drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.44 (p.41) which set out further detail regarding permitted development.

On the issue of a previous application being refused, Mr Whitty explained there was a principal difference in that the curtilage of the previous application extended out into field.

In response to concerns of recreational disturbance, Ms Golding drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.41 (p.41) and confirmed that a contribution of £490 had been received.

Officers responded to Member’s comment and questions as follows;

On the issue of what weight is afforded to which policy; Mr Whitty confirmed the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Management Plan was a material consideration, however, he explained that the Local Plan was the superior document. Mr Whitty informed the Committee that in officer opinion there was no conflict between the policies.

Mr Whitty confirmed that a ‘change of use’ application was not required for the drainage pipe.

With regards to Policy 46; Mr Whitty confirmed Policy 46 was the correct policy to consider. The application was putting an existing building to further use, providing a low-key tourism facility. There was no significant impact on the landscape. He advised the Committee that they did not need to consider whether a ‘need’ had been met when considering whether the application was acceptable under policy 46.

Mr Whitty explained that ‘Class Q’, which allowed the conversion of agricultural buildings, did not apply in an AONB.

With regards to the materials used; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that it was standard practice in the conversion of old agricultural buildings to include a percentage of new materials.

With regards to limiting the proposed rental period; Mr Whitty informed the Committee this was not possible and would be an unreasonable condition. With regards to the dark skies, Mr Whitty drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 7 of the report (p.44) which required a blackout blind to be fitted and closed from dusk till dawn.

On the matter of ‘precedence’ being set; Mr Whitty clarified that there would be no precedence set as the conversion of the building was permitted through the Local Plan.

Mr Whitty informed the Committee that an Inspectors Judgement letter did not create policy.

Mr Whitty confirmed there was no evidence to suggest the site was at risk from flooding.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit with S106, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Resolved; permit with S106, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report

* Members took a 15-minute break.