Agenda item

Councillor John Williams took no part in the discussion or vote on this application.

Councillor Gary White spoke on this application

Councillor Northcott moved refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Holland.

The Chair asked the officer, Nick Bromley to clarify a point on the concrete plinth – the report stated that it was on an area that had been built up, thus changing the topography.  The officer advised that the land dropped away to the side so it was likely that the land had been built up but there was some uncertainty as to the extent.

Councillor Jones had a number of reservations on this application.  Part of a Council’s role is to be custodians of the Green Belt.  Applications in the Green Belt are judged on the harm that they may cause but applications were also expected to adhere to requirements that were set out when planning permission was granted. Councillor Jones pointed out that there had been six breaches of the original planning consent.  Referring to the pergola, Councillor Jones stated that this was the installation of a significant extension and the large concrete plinth with additional buildings on would cause harm to the Green Belt.  The pergola was also visible from the road.  Councillor Jones asked the officer why this did not cause significant harm.

Nick Bromley stated that the timber building was on skids and was therefore a moveable structure which would not need planning permission.  However, should it have needed permission, as long it was used for livestock or field shelter it would be appropriate development in the Green Belt.  The Pergola was operational development and would require planning permission so it was inappropriate development but did not cause significant harm.  Although the plinth was inappropriate development and was of a size to cause some harm, there were special circumstances which were set out in the agenda report.

Councillor Northcott had a number of concerns.  If this had been a recognised business planning permission would have been sought.  There had been no plans of construction.  Councillor Northcott did not agree to Condition six – the concrete plinth and the pergola were large and he did not agree that there were special circumstances. He would have expected an application demonstrating a need for it and there was no evidence to support it.  Councillor Northcott added that he would allow the other parts of the application but with the exception of the pergola and plinth.

Councillor Holland felt that the correct test would be whether, had these additional features been present in the original application, would it have been approved.  The Plinth and pergola had been acknowledged as appropriate development in the Green Belt by the officers so special circumstances needed to be demonstrated in order to approve them. 

Councillor Northcott moved to refuse the application on the grounds that the plinth and hardstanding were inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there was no evidence to support special circumstances.

Councillor Holland seconded Councillor Northcott stating that he was satisfied that the harm to the Green Belt outweighed the benefit.  The concrete standing was much larger than that which had been approved and there were no special circumstances to justify inclusion in the application.  In addition, the pergola was visible from the road and again there were no special circumstances for this.

Resolved:     That the application be refused on the grounds that the Pergola

and concrete plinth hardstanding are inappropriate development within the Green Belt and there are no very special circumstances justified that would outweigh the harm caused.