Agenda item

The HPA – MA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He reiterated that subsequent to the publishing of the agenda, members had been circulated an email from the agent directly.

The HPA-MA outlined the site’s location, site plan, and relationship with the local setting. Another application on the site had previously been to committee (PF/23/0929) in July 2023, this did not form part of the application presented before the meeting for consideration.

The Case Officer offered photos of the site and proposed elevations. Comments had been received from the Conservation and Design Officer objecting to the retention of the garden room and fence primarily due to these structures masking the juncture between the principle two storey barn and it’s subservient single-story wing. The fence as built out did not bare as replacement for the post and rail fence which had been approved under a conditioned discharged under application CDA/17/0495.

The key issues for consideration were; the principle of development; the design and impact upon heritage asset; design and impact on the wider landscape; and amenity.

Public Speakers

Patrick Harper-Gray (Supporting)

Members Debate and Questions.

      i.        Cllr A Brown asked why a privacy fence had been proposed and not a privacy hedge.

     ii.        At the Chairman’s discretion, the agent was permitted to speak. The agent advised that the applicant sought a swift solution that would physically obstruct the overlooking, this would not be possible with a hedge given the length of time required for a hedge to become established. The applicant had asked officers if a temporary fence could be retained whilst the hedge grows, however officers did not support this approach.

    iii.        Cllr A Brown stated that he was not convinced with the argument supplied, and further asked the PL about the treatment of property in neighbouring disputes, as he understood that was not a planning consideration. He noted the allegations raised against the Council for a 2021 planning application, though advised he was unaware about this application despite having sat on the Development Committee during the associated period. He asked if officers could respond to the allegations.

   iv.        The PL advised that matters of purely private property disputes were not material considerations for the committee, however, impact on residential amenity was a material consideration, and the committee may have regard to both the applicant’s amenity issues and neighbour’s amenity issues.

     v.        The Chairman sought confirmation that the fence at issue was not the boundary fence, rather it was a short fence within the curtilage of the amenity area.

   vi.        The HPA – MA confirmed that the fence subject to the application was set back from the boundary fence. During his site visit the HPA-MA had attended the Hay Loft and viewed the amenity area of the Old Workshop from the double doors. He advised that the new fence provided limited additional shielding in comparison to the original fence.

  vii.        The Chairman clarified that application PF/22/1909 removed permitted development rights for the erection of buildings, structures, and other means of enclosures. He asked if the fence detailed was considered a permanent structure.

 viii.        The HPA-MA confirmed that the fence was considered a permanent structure.

   ix.        Cllr L Vickers noted the applicant’s representation and their allegation that the neighbours had breached planning permission and agreement to not overlook his property. She asked officers to clarify this matter.

     x.        The ADP advised there was two points at matter. First, there was a purely civil matter between the two parties as to what they may or may not have discussed or agreed. Secondly, whether the insertion into the gable end of the main building approved or not. It was his understanding that this insertion was approved, though there were queries whether the boundary had been shown correctly at the time.

   xi.        Cllr L Vickers stated that she understood that the double doors in the adjoining building were approved, but asked if there were any formal conditions applied to that approval.

  xii.        The ADP advised that there were none of which he was presently aware.

 xiii.        Cllr J Toye thanked officers for their report. He expressed his concern that planning was being used as a means to cover up the miss-selling of the property to the applicant. He expressed every sympathy with the applicant, but argued it was the miss-selling which was the issue at fault. Cllr J Toye affirmed that the Council should not cover up the error by changing its planning policies. With respect of the application itself, he considered that concrete posts did not demonstrate a temporary structure, and that the reed boundary fence would likely fall before the ‘temporary’ structure. Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

 xiv.        Cllr A Brown considered that greater attention needed to be given to the Garden Room, also detailed in the application, which he argued was the major difficulty. As the site was in the shadow of the heritage asset, this set a high bar over what should be built, irrespective who owns certain portions of the site. He expressed his concern over the design of the Garden Room, describing the structure as looking akin to a large garden shed.

  xv.        The Chairman commented it was a matter of opinion whether individuals considered whether the design was in keeping with the overall scene. He asked the applicant whether the Garden Room was in situ when they brought the property.

 xvi.        The applicant advised that it was agreed that the Garden Room would be there, and that works had commenced before the they had completed on the property. The applicant stated that they had to take the now regretful decision to continue, which is why they were pro-actively seeking permission. The final product was delivered whilst they were the owners however the purchase fee did include the Garden Room.

xvii.        In response to earlier comments, the PL advised that the fencing must be on the boundary to be permitted development.

xviii.        The ADP stated that both the Garden Room and Fence detailed in the application required consent because of the history of the site.

 xix.        Cllr V Holliday agreed that that main issue requiring attention was the Garden Room. She noted within the officer’s report, second paragraph on p.96, that the garage had been removed, and asked if this was because the scheme had not been thought of, or if it was due to the removal of permitted development rights?

  xx.        The DMTL advised the garage formed part of a separate application presented as a retrospective application to committee in July 2023. This application was refused.

 xxi.        Cllr A Brown seconded the officer’s recommendation for refusal. He commented that it was a matter for the applicant, had they been miss-sold the property, to consider taking independent legal advice, but that this was not a planning matter for the committee.

xxii.        The Chairman sympathised with the unfortunate set of circumstances faced by the applicant, but advised the committee could only approach the application on its planning merits.

RESOLVED by 10 voted for and 1 abstention.

That planning application PF/23/1717 be REFUSED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.