Retrospective application for extension to dwelling to link the building and garage to provide additional living space. (Re-submission of resubmission of permission 75903). Report by the Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (RB) regarding planning application 77389 (circulated previously).

Graham Townsend (agent) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (RB) advised the following:

·       The date that the original works were carried out was unknown.

·       The measurements for the internal floor area of the dwelling approved under Reserved Matters as detailed on page 18 of the report was incorrect. The internal floor area for both the ground and first floors should have been calculated at 79.6m² which equated to the total internal floor plan layout of 156.6m² .

·       The reference to planning application 57279 on page 16 was a typographical error and should have referred to the outline and subsequent reserved matters application. He confirmed that the total area including the uplift would be around 210m².

In response to a question from the Committee, the agent advised the following:

·       He could not confirm how long the farm manager had occupied the building, however the property had been occupied by a member of the applicant’s staff since its construction. The applicant farmed a total of 2,000 acres.  He could not confirm which part of the farm that the farm manager had responsibility for.

Councillor Lane (as he had called in the application for consideration by the Committee and in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       Supplementary Planning Documents carried full weight and were a material planning consideration.

·       Class Q applications were considered under permitted development rights and not a planning application and therefore could not be compared. The Government had set criteria for Class Q applications.

·       The Agricultural Workers Supplementary Planning Document supported farmers and rural agricultural dwellings.  This was to ensure that rural workers dwellings remained affordable in the future.

·       If the agricultural workers condition was removed, this would make the property unaffordable.

·       The original workers dwelling was in relation to the keeping of chickens, which had since ceased and the applicant had changed to shared farming (crops) and a contracting business.

·       The Supplementary Planning Document and Policy DM28 were very clear in terms of the functional needs of the holding and that the planting of corn would not necessarily require/justify a proposed extension to the dwelling in respect to the functional needs of the holding.

Councillor Haworth-Booth (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee. He advised that he was the Chair of the Swimbridge Parish Council who had objected to this planning application and therefore he would not take part in the vote at this meeting.

Further discussions took place regarding the accuracy of the measurements and calculations.

RESOLVED that it being 10.55 am that the meeting be adjourned to enable the measurement figures to be checked.

RESOLVED that it being 11.04 am that the meeting be reconvened.

The Service Manager (Development Management) advised that the measurement figures had been checked and confirmed that the following figures were accurate:

·       Existing floor area 104m² (excluding the garage)

·       Floor area including the link to the garage 227m² (excluding the garage)

The Service Manager (Development Management) also confirmed that upon viewing a google image of the site, the rural workers dwelling had been constructed without the link to the garage and had been originally built in accordance with the plans. Therefore, the extension had been a future addition.

RESOLVED (5 for, 1 against, 0 abstained) that the application be REFUSED as recommended by the Senior Planning Officer (RB).

Councillor Haworth-Booth did not take part in voting on this application.