Planning Application No. CB/17/05425/FULL (Shefford)
- Meeting of DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, Wednesday, 31 January 2018 10.00 a.m. (Item 124.)
- View the background to item 124.
Address: The Pigling, Woodview Nurseries, Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LL
Replace existing mobile home with a single storey two bedroom permanent dwelling.
Applicant: Mrs D Hinton
The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05425/FULL for the replacement of an existing mobile home with a single storey two bedroom permanent dwelling at The Pigling, Woodville Nurseries, Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LL.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to an additional comment as set out in the Late Sheet.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from an objector to the application and the applicant’s agent.
(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Brown, as a ward Member, withdrew from the seating allocated to Members of the Committee and addressed the meeting from the public speaking point).
The ward Member stated that the existing mobile home and conservatory referred to in the officer’s report were unlawful structures and subject to enforcement orders. The latest enforcement order had been reviewed on compassionate grounds and a lifetime agreement made with Council to delay the removal of the structures but on the immediate release of the land to the Council. It had also been agreed that at the right time the site would be returned to open countryside under Meppershall Parish Council for the benefit of local residents. With reference to the approval for the development of a neighbouring site the ward Member stated that the site had been approved by the Planning Inspector because the Council did not, at that time, have a five year land supply. He added that the application was not sustainable, lay outside the settlement envelope in open countryside and adjacent to a private, ancient woodland.
(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Young declared a personal interest as he had dealt with the grant of the lifetime agreement).
In response to the ward Member’s comments the Chairman stated that the application should be considered as any other planning application for a new, permanent dwelling and need not take account of the reasons for the lifetime agreement.
(Note: At this point in the proceedings Councillor Young briefly outlined the circumstances regarding the lifetime agreement and his role in its grant. He then left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate or in the vote on this item).
The Chairman stated that he had been advised that, irrespective of what had gone before, the application was completely separate and should be treated on its merits.
In response to a Member’s request for clarification on the legal status of the existing mobile home a second planning officer explained that the building was unauthorised, subject to an enforcement notice and had no planning permission. Whilst the proposed dwelling was a replacement for the existing mobile home the latter did not have planning permission.
The legal officer confirmed that there was no planning permission for the mobile home and that, as yet, no enforcement action had been taken. She added that enforcement action was discretionary. She stressed that the Committee had to consider what was before it.
(Note: In this point in the proceedings Councillor Brown left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate or in the vote on this item).
The considered the application and in summary discussed the following:
· A Member’s comments and interpretation of the status of the enforcement notice. In response the Chairman explained that it was standard practice, when a planning application was made, to suspend enforcement action pending the outcome of the application. Following the decision on the application enforcement action was either reinstated, if the application had been refused or, if planning permission had been approved, the enforcement action was superseded.
· A second planning officer explained that the Council owned the land so no enforcement action would be undertaken as the Council would be taking action against itself. However, the mobile home did not have planning permission and there was an enforcement notice. Under the agreement mentioned previously a form of tenancy had been granted to the occupier to remain on the site. The second planning officer also advised that the occupier was not the applicant. He strongly advised Members to assess the application on its planning merits as it would any other application whilst also taking account of the wider context including an appeal being allowed on the adjacent site and that the related permission would change the character of the area, that no harm would be caused by the application and that other applications had been allowed in the area.
· The second planning officer’s statement that the question of whether the mobile home and conservatory were authorised or not was not the critical issue. The issue was the planning assessment, particularly the appeal decision and the resulting change of character that would arise in the location.
· Confirmation, arising from a Member’s question, that if the application was approved, it could only proceed if the Council, as the land owner, agreed to the sale of the land.
On being put to the vote 4 Members voted for approval, 3 voted against and 3 abstained.
that Planning Application No. CB/17/05425/FULL relating to the Pigling, Woodview Nurseries, Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LL be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.
- 12 17.05425 Map, item 124. PDF 38 KB
- 12 17.05425 Report, item 124. PDF 106 KB
- 12 17.05425 Schedule, item 124. PDF 62 KB