Agenda item

DM/19/01350/FPA - Land East of Old Granary Farm, Morley

Retrospective application for retention of single dwelling

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an

application for retrospective application for retention of single dwelling on Land East of Old Granary Farm, Morley (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

 

Councillor H Smith, Local Member, addressed the Committee and described their duty as very difficult, in determining this application.  She confirmed that she was in support of this application and hoped it was approved.

 

She confirmed that there had been instances within her division where someone had wilfully and deliberately built something for which they did not have planning permission, but she did not believe this to be the case with this application and having met the applicants, she was convinced that this was a genuine mistake.

 

Councillor Smith said that although Members were used to in-depth discussions about the planning process, the process was more complex and confusing for first-time applicants.  She believed that Mr and Mrs Harbottle had found themselves in this position because of their inexperience with navigating the planning process. They used a planning agent and a builder who had both given them inaccurate advice. 

 

Councillor Smith confirmed that the original application in 2014 was to convert a derelict barn into a dwelling.  The planning report stated that following a structural survey, the building could be converted with “minimal intervention”.  Considering the barn had no roof and there were trees growing inside the walls, that could now be described as being over-optimistic.  It was found to be in a poor state and the applicants were advised by their builder that a rebuild would be better.   

 

Councillor Smith confirmed that an email regarding a bat survey was sent to Mr and Mrs Harbottle’s former planning agent in August 2014 and made it clear that planning permission was for conversion of the old barn and not a new build.  The email was never shown to the applicants and only came to light in Feb 2019 when the applicants themselves contacted the planning department and the misunderstanding came to light.

 

Councillor Smith referred to the drawings and measurements that were submitted for the original application in 2014 and said they were found to be inaccurate.  The original plans were flawed, and what was approved then could not have been successfully built.

 

Councillor Smith had visited the house which had been built on the exact footprint of the old barn and had re-used stone from it. It broadly shared its appearance with the previously approved plans for the barn conversion, and all the materials used were appropriate for the building design and location.  The house had been completed to a very high standard.   Because it was built on the barn’s footprint there were some compromises made in the layout of the house, particularly with regard to the width of upstairs corridors and head room.  If the applicants had not been keeping to the original footprint their house might have looked somewhat different. 

 

The Planning Officer had stated that no additional landscape harm had occurred compared with the barn conversion previously approved.  Councillor Smith advised that house enhanced the visual amenity of its location.

 

With regards to the personal circumstances of Mr and Mrs Harbottle, Councillor Smith confirmed that the house had 10 acres of land with it on which horses which were breed and showed were kept.  For this reason they needed to live on site to care for their animals.  If planning permission was not approved, their equine business would struggle to survive.

 

As reliance on a car was the principal reason given for recommending  refusal, Councillor Smith confirmed that should they attempt to continue keeping horses on the land whilst living elsewhere, they would undertake more car journeys than currently.

 

A lot of emphasis had been placed in the report on this being an isolated development in a rural location with no nearby facilities and poor public transport links, making private car use necessary, however all those factors were unchanged since the original application.

 

Neither in 2014 nor in 2019 have there been any objections made to the planning application by nearby residents or parish council.

 

Mr and Mrs Harbottle fully accept the point raised in the report, that the responsibility to ensure they had the correct permissions in place before commencing works rested with themselves, but Councillor Smith hoped the Committee would accept that this unfortunate situation was not arrived at deliberately.  Since the situation came to light they had suffered months of stress and anxiety.  If permission was not granted for their house to remain it would result in their financial ruin and have devastating consequences for their family life and mental wellbeing.

 

Finally, she asked that Members take on board their situation and approve the application.

 

The South and West Planning Team Leader confirmed that the NPPF allowed conversions in open countryside in order to bring buildings back into productive use, but included a different view on new build dwellings in the countryside in isolated locations.  By strictly following the policy, the Planning Officer had to arrive at the conclusion.

 

The Agent, Mr Lavender, confirmed pointed out a number of inaccuracies in the report – the first was that in paragraph 2 of the report, reference was made to a four bedroom detached dwelling, however this was part of a range of buildings so a connective building.  In paragraph 31 there seemed to be a contradiction from the Landscape Officer and it was confirmed that the word ‘no’ was missing and the Landscape Officer had offered no objection.

 

From my involvement they acknowledge that from March 2014 there is a misplaced trust in those advising at the time.  There was no attempt to mislead p authotiy.  The were led to believe that due to the condition of the building on the commencemtn of work that they could dismantle and rebuild it using the same materials.

 

They were not shown the email in aug 2014 which empahsised the permission was for a conversion and they aonoly saw it early this year. Ironically the drawings were incapable of producing #

 

House is of the highest quality and highly sustaibable.  The dwelling raised no technical objections.  The policy section advises on a balance on impacts.

 

He disagreed with the word isolated as this was not compatible with the dictionary definition of the word, which had been relied on by planning case law.  This was a building that was connected to other dwellings. 

 

Mr and Mrs Harbottle realised there was a mistake made but unfortunately they had not received the guidance they expected.

 

Mr Lavender confirmed that the design quality and workmanship was of the highest standard.  Whilst he accepted there was a point of principle for the planning authority, there was a human issue and a development which had no adverse impact associated with it.  The consequences were enormous in human and financial terms and whilst the local authority had a duty, the Committee had a discretion.

 

A mistake had been made but should be balanced against the quality of development - which looked like the permission intended, and the consequences if they were to refuse the planning permission.  The development had no adverse impacts, no objections and he hoped the positives from the application were considered and that Mr and Mrs Harbottle would be allowed to retain their home.

 

Councillor G Huntington agreed that the Planning Officer had arrived at the correct conclusion, but as a Committee member he concluded that the development was in keeping with original building, it had no objections, built from original stonework and in this situation he intended to support the applicant.

 

Councillor Jopling wondered why the email in 2014 had been sent to the planning agent and not copied to the applicant.  She also considered that Mr and Mrs Harbottle were victims of circumstances, they had built a lovely building and she felt that the Committee should make a judgement and approve the application.

 

Councillor Tinsley confirmed that there was only one reason for refusal – an isolated building in the countryside – a difficult reason to sustain when the planning authority had granted permission in 2014 for the same.

 

The Applicants had proactively engaged in the planning process.  Development was on the same footprint, the materials were the same and reused.  It was an app design with no ls harm.  No objections from people in the community.  If the application was refused, it would be flattened and this would not bring back the heritage asset which was important to note.

 

The Council should never be in a position where anyone could build a development without planning permission, however the Committee had the discretion to consider all of the circumstances.  The Planning Officer was not afforded the same discretion, which is why he had arrived at the conclusion he had, but Councillor Tinsley considered that this was a situation where the Committee should exercise that discretion and approve the development.  He moved the application for approval

 

Councillor Jewell confirmed that although difficult decision, this was a case where the Committee should go against the Officers recommendation.

 

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that he believed it was a genuine mistake and he seconded the motion to approve the application.  Councillor Chaplow agreed and felt the recommendation should be overturned.


Councillor Brown commented that thankfully the Planning Committee were able to exercise discretion but she was concerned about this setting a precedent.  The Planning Development Solicitor confirmed that this would not set any precedent, after having a lengthy debate

 

Councillor Maitland asked why inspectors had not picked up on this – inspectors do go out but this was an approved inspector and they were not required to feedback to the planning authority.

 

The South and West Team Leader confirmed that when consent was originally granted, the removal of permitted development rights and he felt it was appropriate to ensure this was added should approval be granted.

 

Members did not feel like the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweiged the benefits and they afforded significant weight to the Applicant’s personal circumstances.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to condtions being agreed by the South and West Team Leader and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Supporting documents: