Agenda item

Removal of condition 7 of permission 6/2010/0083/DM (occupancy condition)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the removal of condition 7 of permission 6/2010/0083/DM (occupancy condition) (for copy see file of Minutes).

T Burnham, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

J Lavender addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He accepted this was unusual given the short timescale since the planning permission was granted in 2010 for the dwelling to provide proprietor/manager accommodation. The application to have the occupancy condition removed was because of unavoidable circumstances.

The business had been set up 34 years ago and was well-established regionally. In the 5 years since the application was granted the applicant and his wife had suffered health problems, and this combined with the recession and greater competition from facilities located closer to towns had impacted on the business and it was now unviable. The existing location would not be sustainable for a new business starting up.

The dwelling was located in countryside but it was not isolated, being situated across the road from a recent housing development.

In conclusion he stated that personal circumstances had conspired to make such an application necessary. The new dwelling was designed to suit the applicant’s personal circumstances.

In response to a question from the Chairman the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had resided in the existing property for the last 34 years and that there was no occupancy condition attached to it. The dwelling was associated with the kennels and there was no requirement to close the business if the property was sold.

Councillor Boyes referred to the application submitted in 2010 and the visit to the site at that time which he remembered being located in the countryside. He recalled that concern had been expressed that this situation may arise and whilst he sympathised with the circumstances of the applicant he could not support the application.

Councillor Clare stated that the report explained that planning permission had been sought in 2010 for a building for a proprietor/manager to live there. However he noted from the report that the applicant and his wife had requested the Committee to sympathetically consider the application to remove the occupancy condition of the new dwelling to enable them to live in the property which had been designed to recognise their health conditions.  

Local Plan Policy and the NPPF were clear. These policies were designed to prevent applications of this nature and to support businesses in the countryside. He therefore moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Richardson explained that he had been uneasy about the situation and had asked for the application to be brought to Committee in view of the length of time since the planning permission was granted in 2010 for the new dwelling and the submission of the request to remove the occupancy condition.

Councillor Davidson seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reason set out in the report.