Conditional approval.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report by remote link and recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.  He reported that Wiveton Parish Council had submitted an updated response in the light of recent changes.  The Parish Council considered that its original comments remained valid, requested a condition to require appropriate landscaping to reduce substantially the visibility of the building to the south and east and across the Glaven Valley, and supported conditions to reduce the impact of internal or external lighting on the dark skies and to restrict its use as ancillary to Parva Cottage and not to be let for holiday or permanent use.

Public Speakers

Marny Ryder (objecting)

Stephen Pegg (supporting)

Councillor N Pearce requested clarification regarding right to light.  He referred to the neighbours’ concerns that the building as now erected shadowed their properties and blocked their light, and he considered that light would be further blocked by the planting of a 2m hedge.

The Assistant Director of Planning referred to the location plan indicating the relationship between the properties and the relationship between Parva Cottage and the parcel of land subject to the Lawful Development Certificate.  He explained that right to light was an issue of amenity and it was adequately covered in the Officer’s report and recommendation.  The Hedgerow Regulations was subsidiary legislation that governed antisocial behaviour relating to excessively high hedges.

Councillor V Holliday, the local Member, stated that the site was in a very sensitive location and there were local concerns that could have been debated under the normal planning process had it not been retrospective.  She referred to the main concerns that had been raised.  She considered that if grown to the proposed height, the hedge would be intrusive on the neighbour’s property and in the meantime, the sunroom would be highly visible from the east where the land fell away sharply.  She considered that it would require more than scrub vegetation on that side to mitigate the impact of the large glazed area on the Glaven Valley.  In the event of the building being retained, she requested conditions to require no lighting, mains or otherwise, and significant landscaping on the east as well as the south. 

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that there was no electricity in the building and the agent had also stated that there was no light or power to the building.

Councillor N Lloyd commented that there were two other sheds already in the vicinity.  He welcomed the biodiversity gain offered by this application and the pledge not to use the building for residential or holiday use.  He proposed the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application.  This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett.

Councillor A Brown asked if it was possible to remove permitted development rights to prevent any further creep of this development.

The Assistant Director for Planning explained that permitted development rights were very limited in the AONB.  Removal of permitted development rights meant that a planning application would be required for further buildings on the land.  It would not prevent further development if proposals were acceptable.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that the granting of the Lawful Development Certificate established that the land did not benefit from permitted development rights.

The Assistant Director for Planning stated that he appreciated the strong feelings that Members had with regard to retrospective planning applications.  It was legitimate to make a retrospective planning application and case law required that they were determined no differently from a planning application made before development had commenced.

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning.