Agenda item

The application was for the change of use of former field shelter and erection of extensions to it, to form single storey dwelling house and creation of residential curtilage (retrospective).

 

This application would normally be determined under the Scheme of Delegation for Officers, however, the application had been called in by Member’s for consideration by the Planning Applications Committee.

 

A site visit took place at this site.

 

Members were advised of the following update:

 

1.     ‘The text at para 7.5.7 of the Committee Report is to be replaced by that below:

The representations that the applicant has made in relation to this matter have been carefully considered in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and on balance it is considered that although Article 8 may be engaged this is necessary in a democratic society. Further, the same issues were considered by the HHJ Seymour when granting the Injunction in the High Court.

 

2.     In response to the Committee Report the applicant has circulated a 9 page written response to Members.  From this it is clear that the applicant wishes the application to include planning permission for the porch and lounge extension.    The matter is therefore presented to planning committee as an application for the change of use of the former field shelter and the extensions erected.  Accordingly para 4.2 of the Committee Report is deleted.

The material considerations against which the planning application is assessed does not however change and the principal considerations remain as detailed  below:

 

a.     Whether the development can reasonably be consider works of conversion?

b.     Whether the new build development is appropriate development in the Green Belt?

c.      Whether any form of SPA mitigation should be secured (in the event planning permission is to be granted)?

d.     Whether there are very special circumstances present?

 

Officers conclude that the assessments undertaken in the Committee Report remain valid, the development cannot reasonably be considered works of conversion, the new build does not meet any of the tests in the NPPF to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  There was no lawful residential occupation of the site prior to the SPA designation and there are no very special circumstances present to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt which would otherwise arise.   

 

The inclusion of the extensions in the application does, however, mean that the first reason for refusal in the Committee Report must be amended and as such this is revised below: 

 

The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the former field shelter was of permanent and substantial construction as required by paragraph 90 of the NPPF and as such, the authority cannot reasonably conclude that the building was suitable for conversion to a dwelling house.  Moreover the application is not supported by any evidence or plans demonstrating how substantive structural or other elements of the former field shelter were utilised or retained in the works undertaken in the creation of the dwelling house.      It is not therefore considered the applicant has sufficiently and robustly demonstrated  that works do not comprise the erection of a new dwelling house as alleged in the extant enforcement notices or addressed by the Appeal Inspector at paragraph 2 of the appeal decision letter (ref: APP/D3640/C/09/2117978 dated 24 May 2010).  This element of the proposal is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful and by its very nature causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt.    Moreover, the creation of the residential curtilage to serve as garden land to the unauthorised dwellinghouse and the extensions undertaken to form the porch and the lounge causes further harm to the open and undeveloped character of the area and results in an enclosed and domesticated area of land, while the extensions increase the scale and mass of the unauthorised dwellinghouse.  The resulting countryside encroachment is contrary to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and reduces Green Belt openness. As such the development is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3.     For the sake of completeness a copy of the enforcement appeal decision is provided - Members attention is drawn to paragraph 2 wherein the Inspector concludes that the works undertaken were not works of conversion but the erection of a freestanding structure.

 

4.     The LPA has been copied into correspondence between the applicant and Natural England (NE).  This correspondence relates to the need to mitigate the application’s impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.  The applicant considers that mitigation is not required as she was in residence on the site prior to the SPA designation in March 2005.    NE has advised that if the applicant can prove her occupation of the land occurred prior to this date mitigation is not required.  However, it is noted that the applicant’s appeal against the enforcement notice on the grounds the works were lawful by the passage of time was dismissed and as such there has been no lawful residential occupation of the land.  In similar cases the LPA has rejected claims that periods of unlawful residential occupation of sites justifies setting aside the requirement for SPA mitigation to be secured.  This approach has accepted by appeal inspectors and contributions towards SPA mitigation secured.       

 

5.     A response of no objection has been received from the Environment Agency and as such no objection on flood risk grounds is raised.

 

6.     One further letter of support bringing the number to 24 has been revived.  This raises the following matters:

 

a.     Precedence – others have been allowed

b.     This is a residential use in a residential area

c.      The delay in validation is unacceptable

d.     The application would not set a precedence

e.     The applicant has simply turned a field shelter into a habitable dwelling as she had nowhere to go

 

7.     An objection has been received on behalf of the Chobham Society.  This raises the following matters:

a.      Inappropriate development in the Green Belt 

b.     The site is in the flood plain

c.      Precedent

d.     The applicant has flouted the enforcement notices

 

8.      The applicant has responded to the letter of objection and comments:

a.     It is too late for the comments to be considered as relevant

b.     There are cases of precedence having being set

c.      Every application is decided on its own merits; i.e. the fear of setting a precedent is not a reason for refusal nor is the existence of any enforcement notices

d.     Questions whether the author ‘is part of and represents The Chobham  Society’

 

Members were also advised that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the proposal.

 

A Member spoke on behalf of a resident who was in support of the application.

 

Whilst Members had sympathy for the applicant, it was however noted that there had been a public enquiry and planning permission had not been sought prior to the development.

 

Some members asked whether a permission could be granted that was limited to the lifetime of the applicant. Officers advised this was not the application before them and further, the enforcement action had gone through a public inquiry process and a High Court Judge in recent injunctive proceedings. These acknowledged the harm to the Green Belt.

 

Members asked what were ‘very special circumstances’. Officers explained these were part of the planning test which might justify development by the applicant taking place in the Green Belt. However, officers stated that the applicant’s circumstances had not changed to alter their view set out in the report and this was acknowledged in the High Court injunction, which also applied to the extension works carried out.

 

Resolved that application 15/0868 be refused for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

 

Note 1

As the application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Miss Hook, the applicant spoke in support.

 

Note 2

The recommendation to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor David Mansfield and seconded by Councillor Ian Sams.

 

Note 3

In accordance with Part 4 Section D paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to this application was as follows:

 

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application:

 

Councillors Dan Adams, Richard Brooks, Nick Chambers, Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, David Mansfield, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White

 

Voting against the recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors David Allen Katia Malcaus Cooper