Retrospective application for the erection of an agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery, straw, hay and fodder, and market gardening purposes together with mezzanine floor, welfare facilities and first floor balcony (amended red outline). Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (DB) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78362.

Dr John Ingram (objector), Brian Hookins (objector), Graham Clark (agent) and Luke Trowells (objector) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement to the Committee on behalf of James Corkery (objector).

Councillor R. Knight left the meeting.

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

·       A wildlife trigger list had been submitted which identified trigger areas for an ecology report to be submitted.  It was her understanding that there was not any hedgerow, woodland or scrub to be removed as part of this proposal.  Therefore, a wildlife report could be not be requested.

·       Planning enforcement action was being undertaken on the site for other breaches.

·       There were no invasive species on the site such as Japanese Knotweed, therefore it was assumed that Part C of the wildlife trigger list had not been completed in error.

·       The Biodiversity Net Gain requirement came into force with effect from April 2024 on minor sites such as this and could not be considered for applications that had been submitted prior to this date.  This application had been submitted in February 2024.  There was no biodiversity net loss on this site.  If Committee were mindful to consider including a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan, consideration needed to be given as to whether such a condition was reasonable, sound and appropriate for this application to meet the test of applying planning conditions.

·       In terms of welfare facilities that were located in the barn, a caravan could be located on the site providing welfare facilities which would not require planning permission.  There was a need for the Committee to consider the application which was before them.  If there was a breach of a condition, then a breach of condition notice could be issued.  There was no right to appeal and would go straight to the Court.

·       Biodiversity Net Gain could be considered for retrospective planning applications.

·       The profits of a business could only be considered if an application was made, for example, for a rural workers dwelling and could not be considered as part of this application.  A rural workers dwelling would require a full planning application to be submitted and tested in accordance with policies.

·       For a site for horticulture use with 5 hectares, a storage building could be built under permitted development rights.

·       A landscaping condition could only be justified where that was a visual impact to mitigate risk of harm.  There was no visual impact.  This barn was for agricultural purposes and anything that was for domestic purposes would require planning permission.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer (DB) advised the following:

·       That there was no evidence that trees or hedgerow had been removed on the site.

·       There was an open planning enforcement action on this site to deal with works that did not form part of this application.

·       On the last visit to the site, the bund was not visible.

·       As part of the validation process of the application, an assessment would have been undertaken as to whether it was within permitted development rights or whether planning permission was required.

·       The portaloo was not connected to a septic tank.

·       The track had been granted as part of a separate planning permission and formed part of the open planning enforcement action on the site.

·       Indicated the location of the bridleway on the location plan.

·       The window located upstairs was at the same end of the barn as the hay store.  There were windows which were domesticated in feature and not agriculture.  There was no evidence that the barn would become a residential dwelling.  Condition 2 was recommended that the barn be used solely for the purposes of agriculture.

·       If the cladding was removed and the window upstairs became visible then an assessment would be required in terms of impact, design and use.

·       The barn had been built on the original footprint, but was smaller in size.

·       There were various enforcement actions being taken to regularise breach of planning works which included seeking the removal of the bund and small shed and issues with the track.

·       Machinery was located in the barn, however she did not have a list of all machinery that would be stored there.

Councillor Davies, in his capacity as Ward Member, addressed the Committee.

RESOLVED (7 for, 4 against, 1 abstained) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Senior Planning Officer (DB).