Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use of agricultural storage barns to domestic storage and workshop for Long Sutton House. Change of use of barn to holiday/ancillary cottage. Change of use of root cellar to Laundry, domestic store, home office and holiday/ancillary cottage with basement. Erection of 2 no. holiday let/ancillary cottages. Change of use of barn to holiday let/ancillary cottage with store and potting shed. Change of use of agricultural land to domestic use. (Part retrospective application).

The Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded members that the proposal had been before Committee several times, and provided a brief overview. He highlighted that in August 2016 members had resolved to approve the application subject to a Section 106 agreement securing non-fragmentation of the site.

It was explained why the application was back before Committee for consideration. For business reasons the applicant was unable to sign the Section 106 agreement, as his financial backers would not support the project with the tie. The Planning Officer reminded members that the Section 106 had been offered by the applicant and accepted by the Committee but it was not essential in planning terms. The LPA opinion on reassessment of the situation was that the economic benefits outweighed concerns about fragmentation of the site.

Mr T Ellerbeck, on behalf of Long Sutton Parish Council, noted they had unanimously agreed that the proposal should be refused. There was no planning reason to remove the Section 106, only a business one. He made reference to the design and access statement, and fragmentation. He queried how long it would be before a new application was made to remove conditions about specific use.

Before wider discussion, the Area Lead and Planning Officer clarified some points including:

·         The planning application was not currently approved and no decision had been issued because the Section 106 had not been signed.

·         The Committee had previously resolved to approve the application subject to a Section 106 for non- fragmentation. Members now needed to consider whether to approve or refuse the application in the absence of an agreement to prevent fragmentation.

Ward member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, noted the buildings concerned had already had substantial investment to get where they were now and felt it wouldn’t take much to complete the project. He also referred to the design and access statement. He was supportive of diversification but lifting the Section 106 at this stage raised enormous concerns about what else was going on. He did not support the officer recommendation.

During discussion a number of concerns were raised including:

·         Tie was agreed to protect residents, concern with no Section 106 that alternative access will be used

·         Previous resolution suggests the principle is acceptable.

·         Section 106 would help protect use of the site

·         Effectively buildings are currently retrospective and unapproved

·         Reference to the Section 106 being necessary in the context of the business plan.

·         The applicant’s financial position was not a matter for members to consider.

·         If fragmentation allowed then it goes against the business plan and the business plan will not be viable.

In response to comments made the Development Manager, Area Lead and Legal Services Manager clarified that:

·         Would need a clear reason about harm of fragmenting if minded to refuse.

·         Condition 6 dealt with access for the holiday units and condition 4 covered non-holiday let use.

·         Members needed to consider if the use conditions were enough to protect use, and why not having a Section 106 preventing fragmentation would make this development unacceptable.

·         If refused likely to go to appeal and also applicant could submit a new application to regularise the site.

·         Conditions alone were not sufficient to prevent fragmentation, but officers were also of the opinion if was difficult to see the harm of fragmenting.

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds that fragmentation of the site would be at odds with the business plan.

Before going to the vote, officers suggested the wording for a reason for refusal based on the proposal made and other comments raised during discussion. The wording was agreed by members, and on being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried 10 in favour, 1 against, with no abstentions.

(Voting: 10 in favour of refusal, 1 against)