Agenda item

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

The Planning Officer presented the application, and reminded members why the application had been deferred at a previous meeting. He updated members that since the application was previously considered, the applicant had supplied an Epitome of Title which provided enough detail for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the applicant could enter into a Section 106 agreement, to tie the building, if members were minded that way.

Mrs D Patton addressed members in objection to the application, and commented the applicant had built a dwelling without permission and the building had never been a garage. She referred to some legal documents and also raised concern that the applicant used the site to breed dogs.

Mr S Wills spoke in support of the application and wished to provide a character reference for the applicant who he had known for about 12 years. The applicant was not fully retired and still supported his son with farming, and he had a genuine need to be near the farm.

Mr D Trent, agent, highlighted there were two letters of support and no objections from the parish council. He noted the applicant was willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement so that he could continue to live in the building. He confirmed the applicant had been a bus driver for some years in the past, but he remained an enthusiastic worker on the farm. He noted the building had a small footprint, and this application would regularise the site.

The Chairman, as ward member, acknowledged it was a complicated situation and there were unique circumstances. She noted when the application had been discussed previously there was concern about ownership and tying issues, however enough information had now be submitted to enable tying of the building to the main house if necessary.

During discussion, the Area Lead and Legal Services Manager responded to points of detail regarding the Epitome of Title, explanation and implications of unregistered land, detail of why the building in its current use was not considered in planning terms to be an annexe, and clarity that a Section 106 agreement would be sound based on the evidence supplied to date unless any contrary evidence came to light.

Members continued to debate the application, during which mixed views were raised including:

·         If this wasn’t a farm how would it be viewed?

·         If approved it will set a precedent

·         Applicant has asked several times to build and been refused, but has gone ahead anyway.

·         No evidence submitted that the site is being used for breeding dogs.

·         Feel this is an agricultural holding and effectively the building is a dwelling of an agricultural worker.

·         Don’t feel should make applicant homeless from his own land.

·         It’s a huge muddle but a Section 106 agreement would sort.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead acknowledged the difficult family circumstances, and advised members that if they felt these to be exceptional they could be considered, but they would not normally be a planning issue. However if the family circumstances were to be considered then members would have to clearly state why. The Legal Services Manager advised that unless this application was considered to be an agricultural exception or justified on compassionate grounds for example, then members would effectively be granting a new dwelling in the countryside.

At the conclusion of debate, it was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote this was carried 6 in favour, 2 against. (One member was unable to vote as they left the room for part of the debate and officer responses).

Following the formal vote, the Area Lead explained that in such circumstances members indicate if they wish officers to commence with enforcement action.

One member noted that it must be borne in mind that the applicant could be made homeless. In response, the Area Lead suggested that members could note to only commence enforcement action once the appeal period has lapsed should an appeal not be lodged, and this was agreed by members.

(Voting: 6 in favour of refusing the application, 2 against, 0 abstentions)