Agenda item

Conditional approval

The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speaker

Paul Wootton (supporting)

The Head of Planning presented the report and reminded the Committee of its recent site inspection.  He reported that Binham Parish Council would not be responding to the application.  He stated that page 53 of the report erroneously referred to the inclusion of a garage and store and confirmed that this application applied only to the conversion and extension of the existing building.  He presented plans, including a block plan showing changes from the previous application, and photographs of the site.  He reported that the applicants had appealed against the refusal of the previous application.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor R Kershaw, the local Member, considered that the applicant had made every effort to try to create a sympathetic rebuild.  The barn was not a historic building; it was a post war animal store built of breeze block and wood and refurbishment would be an enhancement.  It was not visible from the road and only the roof could be seen from the footpath.  He considered that a genuine effort had been made to compromise by removing the intrusive garage building and that the application should be approved.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett congratulated the applicant for attempting to bring the building back to use, but supported refusal on grounds that the building should be worthy of retention and the proposal involved significant extension of the building.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the “worthy of retention” criterion in Policy HO9 no longer applied as a result of changes to the NPPF and recent appeal decisions.

Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett proposed refusal as recommended by the Head of Planning.

Councillor P Heinrich considered that the design was better than the previous scheme.  He supported the application as this was a 20^th century utilitarian building and not a historic barn, it was not visible from the road or surrounding dwellings, made good use of the layout including the crew yard, was a good, sympathetic design and would sit well with its surroundings.

Councillor D Baker questioned the harm that would be caused by the proposal.  The building was not in the Conservation Area and the proposal would bring an agricultural building back into use, using environmentally friendly building techniques.  There had been no objections and he considered that the application should be approved.

The Chairman seconded the proposal for refusal of this application.

On being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal was lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 10 against.

Councillor R Kershaw proposed the approval of this application.  He considered that the footprint of the building would not be extended and it was a sympathetic and good reuse of the building which would be acceptable in the village.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee with regard to policy and recommended possible conditions for the Committee’s consideration.

Councillor Kershaw considered that the conditions as recommended were acceptable.

Councillor P Heinrich seconded the proposal to approve this application.

Councillor D Baker expressed concern that the Head of Planning was suggesting that extensive mitigation should be applied following the Committee’s decision to reject his recommendation and approve the application.

The Principal Lawyer advised that the Committee had voted not to accept the Officer’s recommendation but that did not amount to the Committee granting permission.  An alternative motion had subsequently been put forward to grant permission, the details of which, including appropriate conditions, were under debate.

The Chairman requested planning reasons for approval of this application.

Councillor R Kershaw referred to Policy HO9.  The infill was the only controversial element and he considered that the harm caused by the infill was insufficient to warrant refusal of this application.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee with regard to the construction of the reason in policy terms relevant to Policies HO9 and EN4.

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to:

·       Time Limit;

·       Extent of demolition/new build;

·       Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, curtilage buildings, roof alterations, enclosure and hardstanding;

·       Facing materials;

·       Driveway resurfacing;

·       Boundary treatment;

·       Ecology mitigation and enhancement measures;

·       Drainage strategy;

·       Geothermal heating system;

·       Landscaping;

·       Conditions required by the Highway Authority relating to access and parking and turning areas; and

·       Conditions required by Environmental Health relating to contaminated land and asbestos removal.

An informative note to be attached to the permission regarding foul water connection.

Reason: The Committee considers that subject to the conditions above, the proposals are suitable in scale, massing and alteration, accord with criterion 3 of Policy HO9 and with Policy EN4.