Agenda item

Planning Application 20/03416/HOU - Tuppence House, New Cross Hill, Stembridge.

Minutes:

(Councillor Clare Paul, having earlier declared an interest as one of the applicants, left the meeting for presentation and consideration of this item).

Proposal: Replacement of outbuilding with carport and home office.

A member raised a query prior to presentation of this item and queried if it was appropriate for members to be considering the current application at this time. In response, the Specialist Principal Planner advised that outstanding points from a previous permission were included within the officer presentation for the current application before members for consideration. The Chairman requested that the officer proceed with his presentation.

The Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, He provided an update to members regarding Ecology comments which had been received since the agenda had been published. If members were minded to approve the application, Ecology had requested informatives and a revised condition, which were detailed to members in a presentation slide.

During his presentation, the officer detailed the points in the neighbour objection which included that the old dairy structure should have been demolished as part of the previous permission.

The Specialist (Development Management) explained in further detail elements of the previous permission relating to the old dairy structure, and acknowledged there was some ambiguity with the wording in the conditions when considered with the scheme plans and annotation on the plans.

Before debating the application, some members asked for points of clarification from the officer. The Specialist (Development Management) noted that:

· The old dairy structure was an old metal milking dairy unit on a concrete base.

· The application would still likely be deemed acceptable if the old milking unit wasn’t’ there.

· The Specialist (Legal) had provided a written statement about the possibility of applying a Section 106 obligation, and this was read out to members. In her opinion the conditions allowed the proposed building only to be used ancillary to main the dwelling, and if it was used for any other purpose then it would be subject to enforcement action or require a fresh planning application. Certain criteria needed to be met to apply a Section 106 obligation, and if members were minded to require one, then valid planning reasons would need to be provided as to why such an obligation was necessary.

Ward member, Councillor Mike Stanton, noted he had spent much time considering the application and looking into the planning history of the site. He believed no complaints had been received about the dairy unit still being there in the 9 years since the previous permission. He noted that the application and the neighbour objection had been debated by the parish council and the parish council did not consider there was any issue. He felt the proposal was acceptable and that a Section 106 obligation was not necessary.

During a lengthy discussion mixed views were raised. Some of the points included:

· Application should be deferred for applicant to fulfil previous conditions before considering a new application.

· No point having conditions if they are not checked. Feel something stronger than conditions is needed.

· Inconsistencies with the planning history are a concern.

· Don’t feel a Section 106 is needed.

· Officers have acknowledged that wording on the previous permission is ambiguous.

· Officers and consultees have no raised any major issues or objections.

· The dairy unit isn’t a building as such, it’s a milking bell which is a temporary structure with a concrete base.

· If this wasn’t a member application it wouldn’t be before Committee for determination.

· Don’t consider this proposal meets the criteria to require a Section 106 obligation.

It was initially proposed to defer the application for one month, as this would allow time for the structure to be demolished, and for applicant to fulfil previous conditions. However the proposal was not seconded, so it fell.

It was then proposed to approve the application, as per the officer recommendation, including the revised condition and additional informatives for ecology as detailed in the officer presentation. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 4 in favour, 2 against, with 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 20/03416/HOU be APPROVED as per the officer recommendation, subject to a revised condition and infomatives for ecology.

Justification:

01. The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity, Highways safety or protected species, in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies SD1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

Subject to the following conditions:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans reference:

· 673(PL)01A Location and Site Plans,

· 673(PL)02- Proposed building,

· Design & Access Statement,

and the external surfaces of the development shall be of materials as indicated in the application form and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) the outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the main dwellinghouse.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety and to comply with Policies EQ2 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006 -28.

04. a) Two Vivra Pro Woodstone House Martin nests or similar will be mounted directly under the eaves of the north elevation

b) Two bat adapted tiles will be placed on the eastern pitch of the new building, creating a crevice between the tiles and bitumen felt beneath. Where the bat adapted tile is installed, only type 1F bitumen felt should be used as weatherproof membrane.

c) A bee brick built into the wall about 1 metre above ground level on the south or southeast elevation of the dwelling. Please note bee bricks attract solitary bees which do not sting

Photographs of the installed features will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the garage/workshop.

Reason: In accordance with Government policy for the enhancement of biodiversity within development as set out in paragraph 170(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives:

01. The developers and their contractors are reminded of the legal protection afforded to bats and bat roosts under legislation including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In the unlikely event that bats are encountered during implementation of this permission it is recommended that works stop, and advice is sought from a suitably qualified, licensed and experienced ecologist at the earliest possible opportunity.

02. The developers are reminded of the legal protection afforded to nesting birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In the unlikely event that nesting birds are encountered during implementation of this permission it is recommended that works stop until the young have fledged or then advice is sought from a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist at the earliest possible opportunity.

(Voting: 4 in favour, 2 against, 3 abstentions)

Supporting documents: