Agenda item

The Team Leader, Martin Chandler, introduced the report regarding the proposal for the continued use of part of an existing barn as accommodation ancillary to residential accommodation of the farmhouse at Middle Colgate Farm. The matter had been brought to this committee for a decision given the involved history at this site. The officer recommendation was to permit the proposal. He referred members to the additional representation which had been circulated to members at the start of the meeting.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Alice Ross, local resident, in objection

Mrs Ross advised the committee that residents continued to object to the retention and use of the unauthorised living accommodation in this agricultural barn.  She reminded members that in 2008 they had refused an application for established use of the whole barn as a dwelling which was upheld at Appeal in 2009. The Inspector had agreed with the committee that the lawful use of the whole barn was agricultural with no permission for residential use. The property should have reverted to being a barn at that point and this would have been the ideal time for the Borough to enforce removal of the unauthorised accommodation. This did not happen. The applicant did not appeal the decision and so must have known and accepted that there was no certificate of lawful use but despite this allowed his part-time worker to move into the accommodation in May 2010.

She suggested that if the application had been presented to members in 2011 they would have been shocked to find that the unauthorised accommodation was in full use, had been added to and that even council tax was being paid in blatant breach of the committee's and the Inspector’s decision. She questioned why in 2013, the officer recommendation was now to approve the application, one of the reasons being that the accommodation will just be for occasional overnight stays or storage. She advised members that this was incorrect and Mr Stanley had confirmed to local residents that it was his worker’s home and he intended the worker to continue living there full-time. She also challenged the statement that as the use has continued for nearly 4 years, it was virtually established. She felt this was misleading and only worked if the occupant had managed not to be found out. As officers would be aware, local residents over the years had been in constant touch with them about this matter. If members were minded to approve the application, on behalf of local residents she requested that the following conditions be placed on the permission:
i. The ancillary dwelling or its plot to remain ancillary and not to be sold independently of the main house

ii. An agricultural occupancy condition to be imposed on the ancillary dwelling as with the main house

She felt the second condition was very important in order to retain the agricultural link as the recommendation to approve seems to them tantamount to rewarding bad behaviour with the prize of an unrestricted AONB residential planning permission. At some point in the future they could see the barns being demolished and a charming new house erected on the residential footprint. 

Mr Simon Firkins, applicant’s adviser, in support

Mr Firkins acknowledged that the officer report was detailed and clearly set out what had been quite a long planning history at this site.  This application dated from 2011, and was submitted in direct response to the advice and recommendation of officers at that time.  Other applications since, as outlined in the report, were also submitted on the written advice of then officers.

The original refusal of a certificate of lawful development was handled by other consultants.  Since that time they had been seeking to resolve this situation for the applicant.  This has included many meetings with officers and dealing with their suggestions in respect of the various applications that had been submitted.

Considering the history of the site, and the fact that it was accepted that the use of part of the barn (the part to which this application relates) had been for independent residential purposes since at least 2004, the proposal before members to use this area for ancillary accommodation was very logical.  It would clarify the use of the space and ensure that occupation was ancillary to the main house.

He advised that the applicant just wanted the matter resolved.  As well as the applications that had been made, the provision of the internal wall also followed officer advice (albeit some officers are no longer with the Council).  In addition, the applicant had been paying Council tax on the property for years.

Alongside this, planning policy concerning the re-use of rural buildings had changed significantly in recent times.  The NPPF was supportive of proposals to re-use buildings of this nature and does not look for commercial or other uses ahead of a residential use. Other changes now allowed the use of rural buildings for many other purposes without planning permission, such as shops, cafes, hotels, gyms, offices etc.  These are likely to have far greater impacts than the ancillary accommodation proposed. 

Bearing all this in mind, this application would indeed seem to be the right approach, especially as it also involved enhancements to the appearance of the building.  They were aware of the objections from some local people, but as the report identifies, these appear to have missed the point concerning what is actually being applied for now.

They hoped members could agree with the recommendation in the report in the hope that a line could not be drawn under this site.

Member debate

Councillor Garnham was concerned that if someone was living in the barn then the building regulations should be fully investigated.  It was also important to tie down the ancillary use to the existing farmhouse. In his view a condition on agricultural occupancy for the barn would be a sensible one if the committee was minded to permit the application. This condition on sole occupancy for an agricultural worker was supported by another member who asked for clarification from officers on whether this condition could be applied.

Councillor Fisher reminded members that when they had granted permission for the extension to the farmhouse, conditions had been applied regarding occupancy by agricultural workers and as this barn was ancillary to the main farmhouse, these same conditions would apply to the barn. He expressed concern that there was no fire officer report in the papers. He was concerned about the fire hazard of a wood burning stove in the barn close to other sections of the barn which were used for storing hay, firewood and a motor bike and a quad vehicle. There was also an open wooden staircase to the second floor. He suspected that the current barn did not comply with building regulations and asked whether the applicant would be making it compliant.

Other members supported this concern regarding building regulations and the fire hazard. Councillor Driver considered the property was dangerous and not fit for human habitation and was concerned that the council had insufficient resources to enforce the necessary building regulations.

Councillor McCloskey raised a point of clarification regarding Mr Firkin’s comment that the applicant was keen to draw a line under the history of this site.   She noted that the applicant had another pending application regarding property on the site and asked whether this was dependent on the outcome of this application.

Councillor Whyborn requested clarification regarding how the application had reached this position and what was the reason for the change in officer advice to permit?

Councillor Godwin considered it was very important to apply strong conditions which can then be policed by local people and local councillors. He highlighted the chequered planning history of this site and was concerned that this application was the thin end of the wedge and urged caution.

In response to these points, the Team Leader explained that the application in 2009, which had been dismissed by this committee and at appeal, was a very different application to the one being considered today. The application then was for a certificate to prove that the residential use of the property had been in existence for a specified period of time.  

With regard to building regulations, the Team Leader advised that the Case Officer in this case, Ian Crohill, had spoken to officers in the building control team. Building regulations would apply to this property and current indications were that the barn would not comply. However this was not a valid reason for refusing planning permission now but would prevent the property from being sold on at a later date. Fire safety formed part of the building regulations and therefore were covered in his response. He suggested that if members were particularly concerned and minded to permit the application, they could set out their concerns in writing to the applicant and encourage him to comply with building regulations.

With regard to the suggested condition that occupancy of the barn be restricted to agricultural workers, he advised members that the restriction on the farmhouse for agricultural purposes would automatically apply to any ancillary properties. There was no harm in adding a similar condition to the barn if that was members wish. It would be beyond the remit of this committee to impose any further conditions regarding the occupant having agricultural work as their primary income as Councillor Wheeler had suggested.

With regard to the question about the undetermined application, he advised that he had discussed this with the planning officer that afternoon. Officers were minded to refuse the certificate that had been requested as it cannot be proved that use had been established for the necessary time. However the determination of this application was quite separate to the application being considered today. 

Councillor McKinlay indicated that he would be more comfortable permitting the application if building control were notified of their concerns and it was then up to them to take any further action. He was not happy that the agricultural use of the barn accommodation was covered by the main farmhouse as there was a risk that this condition on farmhouse could be changed in the future and he would not want this change to apply to the barn which was clearly for agricultural use.

Councillor Garnham referred members to planning policy which encouraged “high quality design and a good quality of amenities for current and future occupants.” He suggested their concern about the state of the building could supply a reason for refusal on this basis.

In response the Team Leader suggested that it would be preferable to strengthen the first condition in paragraph 8 of the report rather than add an additional condition. If members wanted to give some steer to Building Control, he suggested that they could request the chair of Planning Committee to write to the Building Control team setting out their concerns. He would not want this to become the norm but he considered it was acceptable in this case due to its exceptional nature.

Councillor Fisher moved to refuse the application on the basis that it did not conform with policy CP4 regarding safe and sustainable development. He suggested as an alternative, paragraph 17 in the NPPF previously referred to by Councillor Garnham.

The officer advised members that policy CP4 was concerned with potential harm to users of land adjacent to the property and not the property itself. In his view this would not be reasonable grounds for refusal. He advised members that they could refuse the application on the grounds of paragraph 17 but it was not a strong reason for refusal and could be viewed as unreasonable and he cast doubt on its potential success if it went to appeal.

The chair reminded members that they were currently debating the motion from Councillor Fisher to refuse the application. He asked the solicitor, Gary Spencer, for advice on what would happen to the conditions they had discussed if the vote went ahead on refusal. The solicitor advised that if the vote to refuse was lost, the permission would automatically be granted and therefore members should agree any conditions before they took that vote.

Members agreed that if permission was granted they wished condition 1 to be strengthened regarding agricultural occupancy of the barn and the informatives suggested be in place to raise members concerns about building regulations with the applicant and Building Control.

Vote taken on Councillor Fisher's move to refuse on paragraph 17 of the NPPF

5 in support

8 in objection

2 abstentions

MOTION LOST

APPLICATION PERMITTED