Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, on behalf of the agent Ian Gowler as a Planning Consultant. Mrs Jackson explained that the application is for the conversion of an existing agricultural building to form two dwellings and the application has been recommended for refusal due to the location of the site being within the countryside and because the building is not considered to be of an architectural or historic merit. She expressed the view that the building is not isolated or in a countryside location as there are other dwellings physically adjoining the site which leads up to the continuous built-up frontage of Creek Road, adding that when taking that point into consideration the development will be in acceptable in accordance with Policy LP3.

Mrs Jackson stated that the barn is capable of conversion under permitted development procedure Class Q, however, the proposal was submitted under Class Q in order that a higher quality development could be achieved and by submitting the proposal under a full application, it has meant that the upgrade of the external wall materials to brick and cladding has been possible in order to meet the Planning Officer’s request. She added that more energy efficient features have been incorporated within the structure which include upgrades to the fabric of the building plus the addition of a formal garden area.

Mrs Jackson referred to case law from the Court of Appeal with regards to Mansell versus Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council stating that development under Class Q is a fall back position which means that it is a material planning consideration for planning applications and that permitted development rights under Class Q can be exercised. She stated that in order for a fallback position to be realised, the development must be a real prospect, and it was confirmed within the Mansell case that Class Q permitted development rights do comprise a real prospect on whether there is a prior approval in place or not.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that the fact that the barn can be converted in Class Q should be given substantial weight in the decision-making process and the principle of converting to residential use can accordingly be considered as established. She made the point that the application has the support of March Town Council, and the officer’s report confirms that it is technically acceptable in terms of highways impacts, residential amenity biodiversity and flood risk.

Mrs Jackson stated that she hoped that the committee are able to see the planning merits of the case and that it complies with both Policy LP3 and the relevant case law.

Members asked Mrs Jackson the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has noted from the officer’s report that on the 19 May last year the proposal was refused and asked what is different between that application and the one before the committee now and why did the previous application not go to an appeal? Mrs Jackson stated that it is her understanding that the two applications are quite similar and in terms of appeal it is her understanding that it was a procedural issue and there was not enough time to take it forward to appeal.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for clarification on how the proposal complies with Policy LP3? Mrs Jackson stated that policy LP3 is a directional policy, and it directs development into locations of built-up settlements. She explained that LP3 requires development to be within the settlements or within built up areas and, in her opinion, it does comply with LP3 because there is development on either side of it and it is within that cluster of existing  development around Creek Fen. Councillor Imafidon asked officers to display the aerial photo for him to review.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for an explanation as to why the applicant has chosen to apply for the conversion of the building rather than demolishing and rebuilding a dwelling? Mrs Jackson explained that it is her understanding that because there is an existing structure in place, the impact on the surrounding area is less and, therefore, by converting what is already there, the views from the open countryside from the surrounding area will essentially be the same and it will be more sympathetic to convert rather than do a rebuild.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that Mrs Jackson had made reference to the fallback plan, and she asked officers whether they concur with her description of it in relation to the proposal before the committee. Tom Donnelly stated that whilst Class Q is a viable fallback position and a material consideration it would be necessary to obtain Class Q approval prior to the submission of an application such as the proposal before the committee.

·         Matthew Leigh added that officers would not have quite an exact same approach as the agent did in relation to the weight that should be given to a material consideration and case law is clear that it is up to the decision maker to do that as long as it is reasonable. He made the point that there needs to be a reasonable prospect of a permission being implemented, officers have not undertaken any academic exercise to consider whether or not the building is capable of approval and nobody has undertaken any exercise about whether or not the pre-approval can be implemented, and he would suggest that if there is reliance on a pre-approval then one should be submitted and use that as a fallback position which can then be given substantial weight rather than trying to use it as an academic potential exercise in the future. Matthew Leigh stated that planning is about facts, and it is not about unknowns, and weight should be given appropriately compared to if there was definitely a fallback position that could be delivered.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she can see no difference with the current application compared to the one which was refused last year and, therefore, she does not know why this application should be approved.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated that the committee need to be consistent in their decision making and he agrees with the views of Councillor Mrs French.

·         Councillor Connor explained that he refused the application under his delegated powers as Chairman, and he sees no reason for the application to be approved as it appears to be extremely similar.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant through business dealings and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)