Agenda item

(Councillor Howard Woollaston declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Lambourn Parish Council. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. He also declared that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).)

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 21/02022/CERTE in respect of land at Coldborough Hill, Eastbury, Hungerford, Lambourn.

2.      Ms Cheyanne Kirby, Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Howard Woollaston, Lambourn Parish Council, addressed the Committee on this application.

4.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the Highways Service had not been consulted, however they had no objection as there was plenty of space on the site for parking and any changes to traffic would be minimal.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.      Councillor Howard Woollaston in addressing the Committee raised the following points on behalf of Lambourn Parish Council:

·       At the site visit the applicant had satisfied the officers that they had been living at the location for more than four years, had registered on the electoral roll at the address, and had utility bills at the address for more than four years.

·       There had been multiple complaints about unlawful building on the location prior to the previous four year period, however no enforcement notice had been served, and the issue had been resolved through officer discussions.

·       Therefore, the Parish Council wished to question the electoral roll registration, the previous complaints to Planning Enforcement and the councils own Core Strategy Development Plan.

·       With regard to establishing residency for the last four years, getting utility bills at a horse year was not uncommon, even recreation areas can have water and electricity, but that was all this land was supposed to be used for.

·       To be able to get on the electoral role for a location which was designated a recreational horse yard would require utilising a non-standard route. We ask the Committee to refer this matter to Electoral Services for investigation. Until this has been resolved the Parish Council would maintain that it would be illegal to certify it as an independent dwelling.

·       To address the previous complaints to Planning Enforcement, whilst the current planning officers might only consider the application before them, the Committee could look at the broader picture.

·       There were insufficient Enforcement Officers at West Berkshire Council and an unachievable backlog of cases. Therefore, the lack of understanding as to why previous Enforcement Notices had not been issued, and concerns not been addressed could be explained.

·       As a lack of resource of the Council had led to members of the community being ignored and while residents had the right to make complaints, it appeared that complaints had fallen on deaf ears.

·       If residents were to have confidence in the Council, they needed to know that they would be heard and respected, and that actions were being taken.

·       The Parish Council asked that if the complaints had been properly investigated, would the application be before the Committee for its consideration.

·       With regard to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Council had a Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012-2026) (CSDPD) therefore covering more than the four year period leading up to this application. In the CSDPD, Policy 5 stated that the North Wessex Downs was area of AONB that should be managed, conserved and enhanced.

·       In addition within the CSDPD, the objective with regards to housing growth stated that homes would be delivered in an effective and timely manner, maximise the use of suitable brownfield land, and have access to facilities and services, at a density which would make the most efficient use of the land, whilst responding to the existing built environment. He asked Members to consider how this application complied with the CSDPD.

·       Lambourn Parish Council asked the Committee to consider the failure to properly document and investigate the complaints made by residents, investigate the legality of the electoral roll registration, and to act in line with the CSDPD and reject the application.

·       Councillor Woollaston stated that he personally found this to be a sad case.

Member Questions to the Parish Council representative

6.      Councillor Phil Barnett asked whether he believed that the situation had come about due to a lack of Enforcement Officers.

[Councillor Woollaston comments could not be heard as his mic was turned off]

7.      Mr Till stated that he could not comment on resources in the Enforcement team or any potential investigations. He stated that he had been an Enforcement Officer however, and had investigated the installation of a window in an unauthorised manner and also the insertion of a mezzanine floor. These were a matter of fact and relevant to the Committee’s consideration, so he felt he was able to disclose them.  However, he did not believe the Committee was an appropriate place to discuss matters any further.

Member Questions to Officers

8.      Councillor Adrian Abbs sought clarification as to when Mr Till had made the Enforcement Officer investigations. Mr Till estimated it would have been between 2007 and mid-2011.

9.      Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that on page 26 of the officer’s report, it stated that an Enforcement Letter had been sent in 2010, and asked what recourse the Council had if Planning Enforcement Order was not responded to. Mr Till could not comment on the content of the letter. However it was likely that it was related to his investigation, and in that case the window was sealed up again. In terms of recourse to further Enforcement Action where requests from the Council had not been honoured, the case would be assessed and whether it was expedient to take action against the resident.

10.   Councillor Culver sought confirmation that the Council did not have a schedule of regularly checking whether an order has been abided by and would be relying on local people to keep them informed. Mr Till suggested that this was not relevant to the application.

11.   Councillor Hilary Cole queried that if the applicant had submitted a full planning application, whether it would have been approved. Mr Till responded that he could not comment on a planning application that had not been submitted. However, in broad term the principal for a new residential development would be a presumption against, as it was in a countryside area. A redundant dwelling would be considered under another policy.

12.   Councillor Abbs asked if the COVID-19 lockdown had had any effect on the relevant legislation. Mr Till explained that there were certain cases in which the deliberate hiding of works during the lockdown would potentially come into play in terms of Enforcement action, namely the time limit for action being taken. However, there was no evidence of a deliberate attempt by the applicant to conceal that she was living on the site. She had registered at the local GP and on the electoral roll, and that local community had made complaints. In addition, the four year period commenced before the pandemic began. It was his professional view that the pandemic would not play a part in the decision. Councillor Abbs noted that utility bills were not unusual and did not point towards residency, however a TV license would have been a convincing document. Mr Till explained that the relevant test was whether the evidence contradicted the applicant’s version of events. The evidence provided included the statutory declaration submitted by the applicant and the letters that corroborated it and was not contradicted.

13.   Councillor Jeff Cant queried whether conditions could be attached to this application. Mr Till responded that conditions could not be applied to a certificate of lawfulness.

14.   Councillor Hooker sought clarification as to whether the Council had already determined whether it was a bona fide address when approving electoral registration. Mr Till responded that he would presume that Electoral Services would need evidence of residence before they allowed a registration, however he was not sure of the technicalities involved. Councillor Hooker queried whether this meant that the Committee was bound to approve the application. Mr Till reiterated that the relevant test was whether the applicant’s evidence had been contradicted, and this had not been the case.

15.   Councillor Barnett asked if there was a postcode for the property. Mr Till responded that there were many places in the district that did not have a postcode. He was not certain if the site had postcode. Mr Goddard responded that his team was responsible for street naming and numbering. He explained that Council Tax and Electoral registration would have a property on their data bases in order to provide a service, however that did not necessarily mean that the property had an address. It enabled the property to be given an address later in the process. An official address would be provided once a planning consent had been approved on the site. Following this, Royal Mail would be contacted and they would provide the postcode. Councillor Tony Vickers noted that an address was not a prerequisite for electoral registration for example a homeless person was entitled to register to vote.

16.   Councillor Hilary Cole asked for confirmation that Policy CS19 could not be considered in this case, as it was an application for existing use. Mr Till confirmed that none of the Local or National policies could be considered for this application.

17.   Councillor Woollaston reiterated Councillor Cant’s point about applying conditions to the permission. Mr Till stated that although it was not possible to apply planning conditions, the certificate of lawfulness related strictly to the land within the red outline and did not allow for residential use for anything beyond the unauthorised dwelling that was currently on site.

Debate

18.   Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate by stating that although the application was legal, it was circumventing the process and I would be preferable to have seen a full application submitted. It was self-evident that the resident’s intention had always been to live on the site. It was substandard accommodation and unfortunate that there was an apparent lack of communication between services in the authority. She was aware of another case where stables for polo ponies had been turned into accommodation and urged that the Council needed to be more vigilant. In her view the application was not satisfactory, however she did not see how it could be refused.

19.   Councillor Vickers stated that he believed the Committee had no option but to accept officer’s recommendation, however the objectors deserved a public record of what needed to happen going forward. The Chairman suggested that it be raised with Planning Advisory Committee. Councillor Vickers agreed, but noted it fell entirely outside of the planning policy.

20.   Councillor Jeff Cant proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers.

21.   Councillor Abbs questioned how such permission could be granted when other measures may be required to grant access to the site. Mr Till explained that Members were only considering whether unauthorised use of a building as residential had taken place, therefore the red line was limited to the building and this was the area of the site that should be considered.

22.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Cant, seconded by Councillor Vickers to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to GRANT a Lawful Development Certificate for the retention of use of part of the existing stable building as an independent dwelling for the reason set out below.

Reason