Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Retention of wooden building for residential use for temporary period of 3 years (retrospective)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  Particular reference was made to the history of the site and the previous permissions.  He advised that additional correspondence had been received from the Chair and Clerk of Chiselborough Parish Council in support of the application subject to personal permission only and the protection of future development.  He further updated that twelve letters of support had been submitted with the application which had not been mentioned in the agenda report.  The key considerations were:

·         Isolated location - paragraph 55 of the NPPF requires ‘special circumstances’ to allow isolated homes

·         Does the proposal constitute ‘special circumstances’?

·         Setting a precedent

The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The photographs shown had been taken just before Christmas;

·         The applicants had been on site since June 2014 and the site was working progress;

·         The applicants were renting the land;

·         He was unsure why the suffixes on the previous planning applications were different and confirmed that all permissions were temporary and all applications were identical;

·         Guidance stated that successive temporary permissions should not be granted however in this instance there were specific circumstances to the applicant;

·         The Legal Services Manager advised that three of the previous permissions were granted prior to the current policy guidance;

·         For unknown reasons the structure had remained on the site and it had only been brought to the Council’s attention that the structure was occupied in summer 2014;

·         Because of the change in policy he felt that it was only fair to give the applicants a chance for the application to be looked at afresh;

·         He had concerns over the lack of justification in terms of functional need for the applicants to live on the site;

·         It was noted that a number of years had lapsed with their being no permission on the site;

·         Policy SS2 was now adopted but could have been given significant weight because of the stage of preparation of the emerging local plan;

·         He was of the opinion that Policy SS2 did not apply as the building was outside the rural settlement and was approximately 200 metres from the nearest dwelling;

·         The issue of isolated dwellings was not defined under planning guidance and was subjective to judgement based upon individual circumstances.  He had made the judgement that the temporary building was significantly far from the nearest dwelling.

The Committee was then addressed by Rhys Davies, Amy Stroup-Allen, Sue Hasell and Carolyn Milner in support of the application.  Their comments included:

·         Support for the educational element of the proposal;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

·         Support for low impact and environmentally sustainable lifestyle;

·         Support for the applicants providing the village and local area with flowers and vegetables;

·         There was a high level of support from the local community;

·         The owner of the land fully supported the applicants living on the site;

·         It was essential for the applicants to live on site.  

The Committee was then addressed by Patrick Tucker, the applicant.  His comments included:

·         His family needed to live on the site in order to make the enterprise viable;

·         SSDC supported Tinkers Bubble and he hoped that the Committee would take on board those values when considering his application;

·         Reference was made to the Business Plan and the evidence on functional need;

·         It was sustainable to live on the site off of a small income;

·         Consideration should be given to Policy SS2 Development in Rural Settlements;

·         There was clearly a local demand for the produce;

·         He welcomed any conditions with the exception of restrictions to the building.

The Ward Member, Councillor Ric Pallister commented that the application was about a family wishing to lead a simple rural lifestyle.  He did not feel that the application was setting a precedent as it had been set many years ago by the previous applications.  He believed that Policy SS2 supported the application and that the Council should be responsive to local circumstances and that every application must be considered on its own merits.  The site was in close proximity to the edge of the village; the application was supported by the Parish Council and added to the quality of life in the local community.  He expressed his support for the application on the basis of a personal permission subject to appropriate conditions without the temporary period of 3 years.

The Legal Services Manager advised that the Council could be at risk of being challenged if the Committee were to agree a personal permission without the temporary period of 3 years, as this was not part of the application before members and the Council had not consulted on that basis.  She advised that if the Committee were to give a clear indication of their support for the proposal the applicant could resubmit an application without the 3 year time limit.  In response to a member question, she confirmed that the resubmission would be free of charge because of the similarities between the applications.

The Ward Member commented that if the view of the Committee was to support the proposal the applicant could withdraw his application.  In response, the Legal Services Manager confirmed that there was no harm in seeking an indication from the Committee.  However, if the Committee were minded to consider the application as applied for but outside of any requirement to prove a functional and financial need, they would need to consider what would happen after the end of the 3 year period. In particular, it could be difficult to withhold permission for a different style of dwelling as policy allowed for replacement dwellings.

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Comments raised included the following:

·         It was felt that the site was not isolated;

·         Concern that the application could be setting a precedent;

·         Concerns over economics and the need for a more robust Business Plan;

·         Support for low impact living and the lifestyle of the applicants;

·         Benefits to the community;

·         The need for protection of future development;

·         Concerns over viability of the site;

The Legal Services Manager advised that it would be difficult to enforce a condition for low impact living on the site as there was no definition of what such a lifestyle involved and monitoring compliance would be an issue. However, a condition could be attached to prevent alterations to the structure.

The Legal Services Manager advised that the Committee could determine the application as applied for and agree to a personal permission for the applicant only.  Another option would be for the Committee to not determine the application and defer it in order to give the applicant time to resubmit another application without the 3-year time limit.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as applied for subject to the following conditions:

·         Personal permission to the applicant only;

·         Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights;

·         Retention of Hedgerow on the northern boundary;

·         Use of site for child education limited to 28 days;

·         Farm gate sales to be restricted to products on the site;

·         Foul water drainage details;

·         Time limit

In response to a member question, the Planning Officer confirmed that the 3 year permission would commence from the date of the issue of the planning decision.

The reasons given for approval were community benefit, sustainable location and support from the community.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 9 votes in favour and 1 against.