Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 (occupancy restriction) pursuant to planning permission DM/20/01153/FPA to allow Chalet 1 to be occupied as a manager’s dwelling linked to the proposed use of the site for camping/caravanning

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for a variation of condition 2 (occupancy restriction) pursuant to planning permission DM/20/01153/FPA to allow Chalet 1 to be occupied as a manager’s dwelling linked to the proposed use of the site for camping/caravanning (for copy see file of minutes).  

The Planning Officer, Jayne Pallas gave a detailed presentation of the application that included a site visit, photographs of the site and a site plan.  She informed members that the applicant was in breach of the occupancy conditions as he and his family had occupied Chalet 1 since April 2022.

Mr Ketley, Planning Consultant addressed the committee on behalf of the

applicant in support of the variation of condition to allow Chalet 1 to be occupied as a managers dwelling for three years.  He was disappointed at the decision for the previous planning application.  He stressed that the applicant was under pressure to secure a future for his family and it was probable that they would adhere to the permitted development rights in the short term but in doing so would need to occupy Chalet 1 as a managers dwelling to run the business.  He informed the committee that the applicant had suffered financial hardship as his roofing business had suffered due to the rise in the cost of living and the after effects of the Covid pandemic.  The family home had been sold and the family had moved into chalet 1 following difficulties in living with family long term.  The applicant felt he had had no choice as he had been offered very little help from Durham County Council’s Housing Team or the registered housing providers in the area. 

The Principal Planning Officer stated that chalet 1 could not be justified for a Managers accommodation as there was no function to be managed by a full time worker and the financially viability of the business had yet to be established. He affirmed that living on the site was unsustainable due to its location that did not outweigh the planning policy to provide a dwelling in a rural location.   

Councillor Adam felt that the request had to be considered sensitively as he did not condone putting some one out on the street irrelevant of the planning framework.  He questioned whether the family home was sold in 2019 due to the business struggles.

Mark Ketley confirmed that the family home had been sold prior to covid and the applicant had resided with family whilst waiting for a property he had made an offer on. Covid had a negative impact on the applicant’s business so the applicant had to pull out of the new property and remain living with family which was not sustainable so decided to reside at the chalet.

Councillor E Adam queried whether it was normal to grant a three year request and if that would be ample time for the applicant to make plans to make the situation better.

Mark Ketley admitted that there had been no sign of improvement within the roofing business therefore the applicant had pre-empted the camping and caravanning proposal to achieve an alternative source of income.  The applicant was hopeful that the time frame would be sufficient to help him find his feet and to find an alternative housing solution nearby.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that policy 12 set out criteria for rural

dwellings to have a functional need where a site needed to be covered for twenty-four hours to meet the needs of the business. The conditions set out that the business would need to accommodate a full-time worker and the business would need to have been established for at least three years.  The applicant could provide no evidence that the camping and caravanning business could sustain the family financially, the business had not been established for three years and the business could not meet the functional need to have a full time worker on site for 24 hours. The length of time requested had been put forward by the applicant.  He felt that the applicant could still be in the same position in three years.  Planning Policies did not allow for dwellings in rural areas to be isolated as in this case and thought the applicant should explore rental sites in the area or sell the land. 

Councillor L Brown queried why the variation of condition (VOC) had been refused twice and whether an enforcement notice had been served.  If there was evidence that the family had been made homeless could the council not provide support.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the variation to the VOC had been refused twice.  If an enforcement notice was to be served the applicant would be given a lead in time to move from the chalet and for the Council to offer help and support with accommodation.

Councillor M McKeon was concerned that some applicants had previously submitted planning applications for holiday lets which had been turned into resident accommodation.  She was doubtful this was the case with the applicant.  She declared that she would not feel safe if she was camping on this site as a single woman if there was not a 24 hour presence on site.

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that there was no business on the site and policy could not justify the use of chalet 1 as accommodation.

The Planning Officer replied to Councillor E Adam’s enquiry regarding the planning history as to why previous applications had been refused in that the previous applications had requested different things and it was this application now that had requested the link for the managers accommodation for a three year period.

The Principal Planning Officer acknowledged that enforcement action could not be taken if a planning application had been submitted.  If the application was refused planning enforcement action would be taken with time built in for the applicant and his family to find suitable accommodation.  This would allow the applicant to also seek help from other Council services that he may not have access to at present.

Moved by Councillor G Richardson, Seconded by Councillor J Atkinson

and:

Resolved

That the application be approved as a personal permission subject to Conditions as agreed between the Planning Officer and the Chair of the Committee.