Meeting documents

Prior to consideration of the application the Legal Services Manager explained that the application sought a COL (Certificate of Lawfulness), the application was to be determined on the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant and any evidence that might contradict that. If further evidence was likely to come forward during the committee’s discussion, a decision on the application may have to be deferred to allow the applicant to consider and respond to that new evidence.

In response to a question regarding why this application had to be considered by AEC when the Town Council and Ward Members had all recommended refusal, the Legal Services Manager and Area Lead East explained that it was part of the delegated process.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in full in the agenda, he read from a  letter sent by the agent (after production of the agenda) questioning why AEC were to consider the application when the Legal Service were satisfied that enough evidence had been received in order to issue a COL.  The officer confirmed that the recommendation was to grant the Certificate.

Mrs M Emery of Wincanton TC (Town Council) addressed the committee in objection to the application. The TC wished the agricultural tie to be left in place and she asked if there was time limit.

Ward Members Cllrs Colin Winder and Nick Colbert both spoke in objection and felt that the agricultural tie had been put in place for a reason; they considered that one of the applicants had lived in the property whilst complying with the agricultural occupancy condition and the evidence submitted to the Legal Service was questionable.

In response to a question, the Area Lead East explained that the application was not to seek relief from the non-fragmentation covenant but to seek confirmation of the lawfulness of the occupation of Lavendar Green.  The applicants state that occupation of the property had been in breach of the occupancy condition for over the 10 year time limit. The evidence, supported by statutory declarations, was that Mr Foremen had never been employed locally in agriculture as his primary job had been in West Sussex. 

During discussion, varying views were expressed including:-

·         Questioned why the application had to be considered by AEC;

·         There was no option other than to approve the application;

·         Members should have been told about the 10 year time limit;

·         An income could have been taken from the land during the time in question;

·         Members had no choice other than to approve the application with the information they had, and the advice received from the Legal officers;

·         In future these applications should be considered by Regulation Committee;

·         If approved, a red line should be drawn around the property.

In response to several questions the Legal Services Manger explained that:

·         The application was purely about the occupation of the dwelling: if a red line was drawn around the dwelling rather than a larger area, it would indicate the extent of what the Council considered lawful.  All other matters, including non-fragmentation of the dwelling from the land would remain as they currently are unless the applicant chose to make further applications

·         No information had been received to substantiate the comment at committee that the land had been let and/or that the income received was the applicant’s main source of income.  Considerable weight had to be given to the three statutory declarations submitted in support of the application; hearsay evidence did not carry as much weight.

·         The COL application process included notification to parish councillors and ward members; if any parties other than the applicant had any evidence that they wanted to be taken into account, it needed to be provided in advance of the committee determining the application.  This would ensure that all relevant matters could be factored into the application.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to a red line being drawn tightly around the footprint of the house. On being put to the vote the motion was carried by4 votes in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED: That a Certificate of Lawfulness be issued for the continued occupation of the dwelling without compliance with condition 2 (agricultural tie) of planning permission 791810, dated 30 August 1979, subject to a red line being drawn tightly around the footprint of the dwelling.

(Voting: 4 in favour: 3 against)