Agenda item

(Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) left the meeting prior to the presentation and consideration of this planning application.)

Proposal: Change of use and laying of concrete base for temporary siting of pony shelter.

The Planning Officer, on behalf of the case officer, presented the application as detailed in the agenda, noting the only reason it was before members was due to the applicant being an SSDC Councillor. He explained that the application was not for a pony shelter but only for a concrete base on which to stand a shelter for part of the year, and for change of use of the land. He noted that grazing of a pony on the land did not in itself require planning permission.

Mr K Manton spoke in objection to the proposal and asked for two further conditions. He felt conditions were needed to require all the land belonging to Tuppence House to have a stock proof fence around it, and that all other conditions relating to the house should be carried out as he understood they should have been resolved prior to occupation.

Mr M Beech, addressed members in a personal capacity in support of the application. He reiterated to members that permission was effectively only being sought for a concrete pad. 

Ward member, Councillor Derek Yeomans, commented that the pad element is retrospective but it did not impact on anyone else and there was a good fence between the pad and the neighbouring property. He agreed with the officer recommendation.

During a short discussion, some members expressed disappointment at the retrospective element of the application, but most members had no issues with the proposal and it was proposed to approve as per the officer recommendation. In response to a query, the Development Manager clarified that a permanent structure would require another application and therefore it was not appropriate to add a condition for no permanent structure but it could be added as an informative.

As members were minded to approve the application, the Planning Officer suggested it would be appropriate to remove condition 1 as detailed in the report, as effectively the development had already been completed. He also noted with regard to the comments made by a member of the public, that it was not possible to add their requests as both would fail tests under planning conditions.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was carried 5 in favour, 0 against with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 5 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)