Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 19/00713/COMIND in respect of a Section 73A application for the variation of condition 2: approved plans of planning permission 16/01419/COMIND.

David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader) introduced the report. He explained that the applicant was seeking to regularise the constructed building by removing some of the unauthorised development to a level that could be acceptable to the Council. The update report provided an updated version of the dimensions table and this showed that the appellant proposed to complete the building as originally approved, except for the height which would increase by 0.3 metres from the original approval. For clarity, it was confirmed that the proposed height would be unchanged from the unauthorised development, i.e. 5.9 metres.

Officers’ recommendation was to grant conditional planning permission.

The update report also made reference to a request from the applicant for condition one to be amended which would extend the timeframe for completing the work from six months to nine months. The Officer view was that six months was a reasonable time for the completion of the work.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Higgs, Parish Council representative, and Mr Mart Pettitt and Ms Nikki Boughton-Smith, supporters, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Representation

Mr Higgs in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council objected to this retrospective application. A retrospective application was refused in 2018 and there was also a separate refusal not referred to in the planning history.

·                    Both the unauthorised development and this proposal were not in accordance with plans approved in 2016. Proposed windows and doors were not shown in the plans, neither was having an upper floor.

·                    Paragraph 5.4 of the Committee report explained that the breach of planning control was referred to Planning Enforcement and the enquiry that followed established that the building had been constructed as a dwelling. A dwelling had not been permitted and the development should be as per the plans.

·                    Mr Higgs queried what guarantee could be given that the development, if approved, would adhere to the plans.

Supporter Representation (it was clarified that Mr Pettitt was in fact the agent and Ms Boughton-Smith the partner of the applicant)

Mr Pettitt in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The conditions of the August 2016 permission had been discharged, with the exception that the development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. This application was to regularise the constructed building and make it acceptable to the Council.

·                    Subject to approval of this application, the build would be in accordance with plans. The building would not be used as a dwelling, the need remained for the new stable block and farm machinery store.

·                    The applicant was content with the conditions recommended by officers and the accompanying restrictions on the building’s use. The required alterations to the building would be completed within the prescribed timeframe.

·                    No letters of objection had been received to this application and approval was sought as recommended by Officers.

Member Questions to Supporters

Councillor Jeremy Cottam queried the machinery that would be stored. Ms Boughton-Smith explained that this was a number of tractors and equipment which were ancillary to the garden and the growth of vegetables.

Councillor Graham Pask queried the reference made by the Parish to other refused applications on the site. Ms Boughton-Smith advised that many different scenarios had been considered for the site over time. Mr Pettitt reiterated the point that this application would regularise the development and the applicant was willing to make the necessary changes to the constructed building so that it accorded with plans.

Councillor Alan Law sought confirmation that as the upper floor was not included in the plans it would be removed. Ms Boughton-Smith confirmed this. Mr Pettitt stated that the development would be in accordance with the plans.

Councillor Geoff Mayes queried the ability to complete the work within six months. Ms Boughton-Smith advised that this would be difficult, but would be adhered to. She explained that an extension to nine months had been sought as the build of a new house (a separate planning permission) was about to commence. The extension would have avoided the two developments running concurrently.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Pask queried why the full planning history was not detailed in the report. Mr Pearson explained that only the relevant history had been included, i.e. in relation to the original consent in 2016 and subsequent variations.

Mr Pearson clarified that the application, if approved, would result in the build being completed in accordance with the approved plans for a single storey building, with all works to be completed within six months. Enforcement Officers would be asked to inspect the building to ensure this was adhered to.

Debate

Councillor Tony Linden proposed approval of Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Geoff Mayes.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Amendment time limit

The approved amendments to the constructed stable building hereby permitted shall be carried out within 6 months from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 - 2026 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2. Approved plans

The development hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with drawing Nos. 03 and E01 REVISION 01 received on 11 July 2019.

Reason:  To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policy ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

3. Materials

The materials to be used in this development shall be as specified on the plans or the application forms. No other materials shall be used unless prior permission in writing has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

4.  External lighting

The external lighting used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved external lighting details approved under discharge of condition application 16/02699/COND1. There shall be no further external lighting to that approved with the permitted condition discharge application unless permission has been granted by the local planning authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the dark night skies character of the AONB. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

5.  Private recreational equestrian purposes

Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2015 (as amended) and any subsequent revision, the application site area and development permitted, shall only be used for private recreational equestrian purposes and shall not be used for any other purpose including commercial riding, liveries, breeding or training or any other non-equestrian use.

Reason:  A commercial/business use may not be appropriate for this site.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6. Spoil removal

The spoil removal from the site shall be completed in accordance with the approved spoil removal details approved under discharge of condition application 16/02699/COND1. All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that any raising of ground levels on the site will not harm the character and amenity of the area. In accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

7. No additional floor space including a Mezzanine floor

Notwithstanding the provisions of either the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order, with or without modification) and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2015 (as amended) and any subsequent revision, there shall be no internal or external alterations including any mezzanine flooring to increase the floor space of the building, without the permission of the local planning authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason:  To retain control over the uses on the site and their intensification, particularly having regard to the limited parking space available and to enable these matters to be assessed against the policies of the development plan. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS5, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).