Meeting documents

Proposal: Conversion of redundant outbuildings to a dwelling.

The Planning Officer presented the proposal as detailed in the agenda report, and highlighted the buildings that should have been removed as part of a previous approved application. He noted that in some respects it was questionable if the proposal was a conversion due to the amount of reconstruction required, and under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework it was not considered to comply with paragraph 55. He advised members that if they were minded to approve the application, then conditions would be required, including a specific one for drainage.

Mr C Miller, agent, was pleased that the buildings were considered to be convertible, but felt the officer had not given enough weight to the potential for enhancement of the site. Referring to current uses of the wider site he explained why the driveway and parking elements were included as part of this application. He noted much of the proposal could be subject to landscaping conditions, and felt there were ample planning arguments regarding enhancement to the site. He further noted that no objections had been submitted.

Ward member, Councillor Tiffany Osborne, referred to the officer recommendation for refusal and questioned whether elements of that reasoning were justified. She noted the track was not new and a track had existed for over 20 years but acknowledged it had been upgraded. The applicant had taken the opportunity to provide parking in this application for the neighbouring businesses. Regarding the proposed garden area having a negative landscape impact, she noted the applicant was willing to reduce the area or change the shape. Reuse of existing buildings would be an enhancement and not detrimental to the surrounding area.

During discussion, members indicated support for the application and comments raised included:

·         Design quite innovative

·         Other buildings in the nearby area had been converted

·         Sympathetic design

·         Feel would be an enhancement but should consider removing permitted development rights

·         Post and rail fencing should be kept but perhaps enhanced by the addition of hedging

The Development Manager reminded members that the garden area as indicated on the plans before them was what needed to be considered, and whether it was felt to be an enhancement.

As members were minded to approve the application, the Planning Officer advised members that as well as conditions, a legal agreement would be required for an affordable housing contribution. The Planning Officer suggested wording for the justification, and recommended that the detail of conditions, including removal of permitted development rights, be delegated to officers in consultation with the Area Chairman and ward member.

It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the justification as suggested by the Planning Officer, and subject to a legal agreement for an affordable housing contribution, with conditions to be agreed by the Development Manager in consultation with the Area Chairman and ward member. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)