Agenda item

Proposal: Conversion of a double garage into a one bedroom dwelling (retrospective).

The Planning Officer presented the application, and gave a brief overview of the history of the site.

Mr J Wood of Huish Episcopi Parish Council, noted they had originally objected, however on doing a little research on the applicant’s circumstances they found he is still farming, and so they feel the dwelling should stay but with an agricultural tie.

Mrs Thornton Bond spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Ms L Crossman who is the owner of the main house. She raised concern that the applicant breeds dogs creating much noise and mess. It was noted the applicant only occasionally lent a hand on the farm and they did not consider him to be a retired farmer.

Members were then addressed by Mr M Jenkins and Mr D Moore in support of the application. Their comments included:

·         Known applicant for many years and he is a fourth generation farmer. It is important he lives nearby to check livestock.

·         Acknowledged he should have had planning permission before moving to the garage, but it’s a complicated family situation.

·         Two other houses are being built nearby.

·         Perplexing that its being recommended for refusal. Feel only grounds for refusal appear to be because the site is one mile from facilities.

·         Although a retired farmer, he still helps on sons farm. Application will regularise the site for a retired farmer.

·         A starting point for members to consider is that this is an unauthorised dwelling on an agricultural holding.

·         Acknowledge there are some family relationship issues.

Agent, Mr D Trent, highlighted the only reason for refusal was the site not being in a sustainable location. He referred to the Windy Ridge appeal decision noting comments made by the Inspector regarding location and sustainability. He noted what he considered to be the benefits of the application including a nearby bus stop and the proposal not being detrimental to the landscape character. In the absence of a five year land supply the proposal should be considered acceptable.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, noted there was much history to the site and had asked that the application be considered by Committee to enable the issues to be discussed fully.

During discussion members raised several comments and the Area Lead responded to points of detail. His comments included:

·         Policy SS2 did not apply to Pibsbury

·         Acknowledge building is there already, but no justification has been provided to retain the dwelling.

·         If members are satisfied about the relationship of this application to the main house, exceptions could be considered.

·         A garage could be converted to residential without a need for planning consent but only if ancillary to the house, which isn’t the case with this proposal.

The Legal Services Manager explained that in the absence of a legal agreement between the applicant and the owner of the main house, then members needed to consider if a separate and additional dwelling was acceptable.

At the conclusion of debate members felt there was uncertainty regarding the applicants status, more clarity was needed regarding the holding ownership and the scope for a Section 106 agreement to restrict occupancy. It was proposed to defer the application to clarify ownership and possible restrictions on occupancy. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

(Voting; unanimous in favour)