Agenda item

Demolition of existing and construction of replacement farm office.

PERMIT

Mr Saunders presented the report to Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included a further comment from the Landscape Team.

Mr Saunders explained the application was for the demolition of an existing ‘chalet style’ office and construction of a replacement farm office.  He outlined the site location, which was within the Parish of Stoughton and confirmed all land within the blue line was within the control of the applicant. The proposed development would be located in the area identified by the red line. The site was already well screened by existing vegetation.

Mr Saunders provided a brief summary of the farming enterprise which operated from the site and why a larger office facility was being sought.

The following representations were received;

Mrs Lysaght – Objector

Sue Montila – Objector

Mr Michael Conoley (on behalf of Caroline Tipper) – Objector

Mr Jack Stilwell – Applicant.

The Chairman asked Mr Saunders to respond to some of the comments made by some of the speakers.

Mr Saunders confirmed that in 2018 retrospective planning permission had been given for the siting of two containers (located in the NE of the site) and two agricultural barns. He confirmed the landscaping condition had been discharged.

Mr Saunders confirmed the building would at no time have a first floor or mezzanine and drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 5 on page 173. If an additional floor were required at a future date a full planning application would be required.

 Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

In response to concerns regarding the removal of the containers; Mr Saunders drew members attention to Condition 7 (on page 173), he suggested the condition could be amended to include the word ‘permanent’ as follows ‘…the complete and permanent removal’. The Committee agreed this amendment if permitted.

Mr Saunders confirmed enforcement officers had previously visited the site. However, officers had worked with the applicant and retrospective applications had been made, as was entirely within their right. He reminded the Committee the application they were considering was not a retrospective application.

In response to concerns regarding the future use of the development; Mr Saunders agreed a Condition (if permitted) could be included that would require the removal of the building should it no longer be required.

To answer a question of regarding the extent of the concrete base at the site Chairman used their discretion and invited the applicant to confirm. The applicant confirmed neither of the containers were stored on a concrete base, the current office was on a concrete base and this would be incorporated within the new development.

With regards to the use of a comma in Condition 7; Mr Saunders agreed if permitted the comma could be removed to read as follows; ‘…removed from the site together with…’

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to Permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the report conditions and informatives, as well as the agreed amendments to Condition 7 (inclusion of the word permanent and the removal of the comma) and the inclusion of a new condition requiring the removal of the building should it no longer be required as a farm office.

* Members took a five-minute break.

*Cllr Bowden left the meeting at 4pm