Agenda item

Detached new dwelling to replace previous existing barn.

The Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was a detached new dwelling to replace previous existing barn and was recommended for refusal. 

Members noted that an agricultural barn had been on the site and had been in the process of conversion into a dwelling, under permitted development rights, when the structure collapsed.  Accordingly, an application was submitted in terms of a new detached dwelling on the site.  It was explained that the area contained a small cluster of properties, and that the site was within the green belt.  The Planning Team Leader noted that the applicant ceased works on the site and effectively all that remained was a concrete pad.  It was explained that the footprint of the proposed building was the same as the demolished agricultural building and the shape, size and massing was identical to the proposals that would have been undertaken under permitted development.

The Committee noted that there had been no objections from the statutory or internal consultees on the application and there had been 2 letters of support from local residents, wishing to see the site developed as a family home.

The Planning Team Leader noted that the issue was whether the proposal was acceptable in principle.  It was reiterated that the agricultural building did have permission for conversion to residential use; however this application was for the replacement of a building.  Members noted that the site was now open and therefore the proposals represented development in the green belt and represented an adverse impact.  The Planning Team Leader noted that in all other aspects the proposal was acceptable; however, as the application represented development within the green belt the recommendation was for refusal. 

The Chairman asked Mrs Proctor, the applicant, to speak in relation to the Application.

Mrs K Procter explained that she and her husband had bought the property around a year ago, with the intention to convert it to a family home.  She added that during the process of removing the asbestos roof and timbers, the building had collapsed.  It was noted that it had been unavoidable and the collapse had been dangerous.  Mrs K Procter added that they had contacted the Planning Department subsequent to the collapse and were told to stop building and resubmit the application.

Mrs K Procter explained that they did not want to do anything different to the previous conversion application, simply to have a family home.  It was added that they were from Seaham, with family living in the area and their children attending the local school.

Mrs K Proctor concluded by explaining she and her husband were not developers, were not building the property for the money, rather as a family home, investing their life savings and should the application not be approved they would lose everything.

The Chairman thanked Mrs K Proctor and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor J Robinson noted that this application reinforced his view of the foolishness of planning law, with the last application having been built not in line with permission and with this application where the applicant has come to the Council to get the right permission in place.  Councillor J Robinson noted the recent Planning Inquiry which was lost in terms of 300 houses, a large development, and this application was for a single dwelling, already part of a small developed area.  Accordingly, Councillor J Robinson felt that there was a special argument and as there had been no objections to the development he felt the Committee should be pragmatic and go against the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor P Conway noted he supported Councillor J Robinson in terms of being a special circumstance, with the site being bound by other properties on three sides, with no visibility of the “green belt”, and a number of residential properties in the area.  It was added that he could not imagine standing in any position in the nearby green belt and there being potential harm from this proposed development and therefore felt there were special circumstances.  Councillor P Conway added that the current state of having an empty plot was “hurtful to mine eye” and in fact felt the development would enhance the area, accordingly he would support approval of the application.

Councillor A Bell noted the crazy situation in terms of the permitted development, then the collapse and the application having to come before Committee with a refusal recommendation.  In terms of requiring a special circumstance, Councillor A Bell noted that while the original conversion was of an agricultural building to a residential property, could it be considered that the development was a continuation of the building works that had started when the structure collapsed.  Councillor A Bell noted he too supported approval of the application.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that while building works had begun in terms of the permitted development, conversion of a barn, any future works would constitute a new development and would require planning permission and the refusal recommendation from Officers was due to the development being inappropriate development within the green belt, with the NPPF stating there was harm by reason of inappropriateness, and it would be for Members to decide whether this harm was outweighed by any other circumstances, such that very special circumstances could be said to exist. 

Members were reminded that there was no closed list in terms of what potential circumstances could outweigh the harm, for example the personal circumstances of the applicant were a material planning consideration and Paragraph 88 of the NPPF stated:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

Councillor J Clark noted that this application highlighted the importance of site visits, adding that simply looking at the report there appeared no reason to believe the application should go forward.  However, going on site and seeing the context of the site, how it sat with the existing buildings, Councillor J Clark noted her support for what fellow Members had said in terms of approval on the basis of: the personal circumstances of the applicants; the development caused no additional harm to the green belt; and that if the site was not development then this would constitute harm to the other nearby residents and negatively impact upon amenity.

Councillor C Kay felt that the site was in fact brownfield as there had already been development on the site and that while Members accept the Planners’ views, common sense would say it was the same development as before and the development was not “out in the wilds of Wannie” and therefore he would support and move approval of the application.

The Chairman noted that the Committee must work on the principles of the Planning Policies in place, as the Planning Officers did, and if Members felt they did not support the view of Officers then they must give the reasons why and refer to the relevant policies to support that view.

Councillor B Moir asked if the comments from Members of the Committee had identified yet, for the purposes of a proposal for approval, the special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the green belt, reiterating the unfortunate collapse of the agricultural building, a commercial disaster and a personal devastation. 

The Chairman noted he felt the Committee was almost there, with Councillor P Conway having noted he felt the development would enhance the green belt and the amenity of the nearby residents.

Councillor J Robinson noted he proposed that the application be approved, noting the special circumstances in terms of: the personal circumstances of the applicants; the development being at the edge of the green belt; the development would enhance the area; was near to other built up areas; and not causing additional harm to the green belt; outweighed any perceived harm to the green belt.  Councillor P Conway seconded the proposal for approval adding; if Councillor J Robinson was in agreement, that there would be harm to the amenity of the other residents should the development not take place.  Councillor J Robinson agreed.

The Planning Team Leader noted that should Members vote to approve the application, it would be subject to the normal conditions in such applications, such as timescales, approved plans, suitable materials and to also remove further permitted development rights, and asked if the Committee would also agree for those conditions to be determined by Officers under delegated authority from the Committee.  Members agreed in terms of the delegation of conditions to Officers as suggested. 

Councillor J Robinson moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor P Conway.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVEDsubject to conditions to be agreed by Planning Officers.