Agenda item

Demolition of existing barn and pigsty replaced with 1 no. dwelling.

Permit

Mr Power introduced the application.

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet detailing an additional condition in relation to the removal the existing building, and an amendment to an existing condition regarding legislation pertaining to not constructing a building or structure on the site without planning permission being granted. 

Mr Power also drew the Committee’s attention to the report and explained that an omission had occurred in regards to the recommendation which should read ‘Recommendation to permit with S106’.  As with the previous application, condition 8 required the addition of the words ‘until the’ to be inserted between the words ‘and’ and ‘car’ in the first sentence to read; ‘The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the car charging points…..’

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Adrian Hadland – Parish Council

Members commented upon the frustrations of parcels of land in unsustainable areas being used to construct dwellings and this application would not build on the original footprint of the current building, which would be demolished and not converted.  Mr Whitty responded that he understood Members frustrations, but on a point of clarification in relation to class Q, the Parish Council have previously been, and will continue to be, consulted on Class Q applications and the current application should be considered having regard to the permission for the conversion of the existing building to a single dwelling, afforded by the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order.  With regard to the Council’s upcoming guidance on determining Class Q Prior Approvals, legislation could not be changed or policy created, the guidance was to ensure consistency in these situations was applied. Class Q related to whether a building was capable of conversion without structural intervention and this had been proved in this application and was a material consideration.

Members sought clarification regarding the materials to be used, whether the buildings were currently for agricultural use, that in the previous item on the agenda  the conditions relating to hours of construction and deliveries were separate, but together on this application, whether there was a planting plan, whether the cross-hatched area was the amenity area and whether the building shown was on the 1990 permission and was used for storage.  Members sought further clarification regarding whether there would be permitted development rights for another agricultural building, for which a further application for conversion may be forthcoming at a future date.  Mr Power responded that the materials would include brick walls with a tiled roof, the buildings were considered to be in agricultural use when the class Q application was considered and during the officer’s site visit for the current application there was nothing to indicate otherwise. The previous item on the agenda was within a built-up residential area and in this instance the location was rural and therefore there was less opportunity for disturbance during construction and therefore the condition in relation to hours of construction was less prescriptive.  A landscaping plan was not submitted with this application and the hatched-area within the plan is a carry-over from the prior approval proposals.  With regards to the 1990 permission noted within the planning history, this did not relate to the building that formed this application. Mr Whitty added that the effects of class Q permitted development rights were that if a proposal was implemented, an application for prior approval could not be sought for an additional agricultural building and planning permission would be required.  However this application would not be enacting the prior approval, so it would not prevent an applicant from seeking prior approval for an agricultural building.  The hatched area was not proposed as part of this application, and was shown as part of the prior approval and Mr Whitty added he considered that a landscaping requirement should be included within the conditions.

Members commented that the hours of work including demolition should be controlled and that a landscaping plan which should include boundary treatment, could be conditioned.  Mr Whitty confirmed a condition could be added to control the hours of work, and with regards to a landscaping plan, suggested that the recommended conditions could be amended to include the requirement for further details regarding boundary treatments.

Members sought advice regarding if the application was refused, what were the implications for an appeal.  Mr Whitty advised that if the application was refused on the principle of development, and if the applicant chose to appeal, the Authority was likely to lose the appeal given that it was necessary to take account of the prior approval, and the application was effectively replacing one for another, with no net gain of dwellings on the site.

Members commented that the possibility of an appeal should not be a consideration, and each application should be decided upon on its own merits.  Mr Whitty advised that the Committee must act reasonably and if minded to refuse permission, provide precise reasons for refusal based in policy.  The Committee must also be mindful if at an appeal it was found the council acted unreasonably then it could be subject to an award of costs. 

Members sought clarification regarding whether permitted development rights could be removed on specific areas of the site, and Mr Whitty confirmed a condition could be applied to land within the blue line provided on the plan, preventing further conversions under class Q at a future date.

Members sought advice as to whether refusing such applications had been tested and Mr Whitty advised that it had been tested on many occasions, across the country.   That representations had been made to Government, regarding the loopholes associated with prior approvals, and the Authority had also provided feedback to the Local Government Association on this matter, during a recent visit.  The only way in which to exercise frustrations was to lobby Government, but it could not be undertaken by refusing this application, case law suggested the Authority would lose on appeal.

Members proposed and seconded that a condition that class Q was removed from the site in future and that a separate condition was added regarding the times of construction.

The Chairman commented that conversions are not liable to Community infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Parish Councils were missing out on this opportunity, therefore with the new Local Plan, could CIL be introduced for conversions and for applications such as this.  Mr Whitty confirmed that CIL regulations were set out in legislation, regarding when CIL can be collected, although the Authority sets the rates.  Conversions were liable for CIL but developers were able to discount the existing floor area, so only additional floor-space was liable.

Recommendation to Permit agreed with the conditions as cited on the update sheet, add that the recommendation to permit is subject to S106 and to amend section 8 to include the words ‘until the’ and further/amended conditions:

·         To confirm the hours of work is to be permitted

·         To require a landscaping plan with boundary treatments

The Committee took a ten minute break