1155.
The Committee considered an application for proposed earth works (retrospective)
The application was referred to the Committee because it was called in by Councillor Sunnucks for the following reasons:
•
The scale and form of the earthworks may be incongruous with the rural character of the Colne Valley.
•
Multiple applications, including 240598, 240679, 241710, 242053 and 250577. The site needs to be considered as a whole.
•
The works may materially exceed what was permitted under the existing agricultural building approval.
The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information was set out.
The Committee made a site visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals upon the locality and the suitability of the proposals for the site.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application related to the retention of earthworks that had been completed, including levelling part of the site to make way for a pre-approved agricultural building. He showed the site through drawings and photographs which demonstrated the scale, difference in height between the adjacent field and earthworks, and how the earthworks, now overgrown, could partially be seen from the road. He also outlined planning considerations. The proposal was legitimately deemed to be relating to agriculture, and previous building approval had been given for hay and machinery storage. The scheme was considered acceptable in terms of visual impact and was well screened, with the character of countryside maintained. It accorded with policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Highways Authority had no objections, as access had not changed and the work had already been carried out. No significant vegetation was affected, and an ecological appraisal had been submitted with recommended conditions. Natural England had not objected and the impact on wildlife was considered acceptable, subject to conditions laid out at the end of the report. There was no impact on residential amenity, it was not in a flood zone, and the applicant had confirmed that the red line was accurate (this had also been verified by the Senior Planning Officer). He emphasised that the prior approval application not part of this. However, because of a change in levels in the land (which would in any case reduce the impact of the building) the Council would recommend future reapplication. The Ministerial Statement from 2015 to which the objector had referred, related to intentionally undertaking unauthorised development without planning permission, and there was no evidence that this was the case. The recommendation was therefore approval with conditions.
Mr Angus Forrest addressed the Committee in objection to the application, pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule Eight. He questioned whether the amendment sheet and associated material had been circulated to the Committee, and Officers confirmed that it had been. Mr Forrest stated that he did not believe that correct, clear information had been provided and felt that there were too many inaccuracies. He questioned what genuine agricultural need was served by the earthworks and stated that there was no proof that the applicant ran any relevant business. In his view, the earthworks already caused landscape harm, and he questioned why there was no mention of the Ministerial statement that intentional unauthorised development was a material consideration, justifying refusal. He continued that the red line was wrong, this was not permitted development exempt from BNG, the Highways response was based on incomplete information, and the correct fees had not been paid. Furthermore, as the Local Government Ombudsman was investigating alleged maladministration, bias and procedural impropriety, it could be considered unreasonable for the Council to recommend approval to Members. He therefore urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Councillor Sunnucks attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed the Committee as a local ward member. He expressed the view that whilst he felt sorry for officers having to deal with the amount of correspondence over the past couple of years, he shared some of the Speaker’s concerns. In particular, the way the earthworks have been had been carried out was not suitable for any agricultural use. Nevertheless, he emphasised that he would like to see the matter settled, but with the strongest marker against further development.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues raised by the Speakers, many of which had already been covered. The Council’s view was that the work did relate to agriculture. There was no reason to disbelieve that it would be for hay storage and Officers could see no other use apart from agriculture. Whilst there was a significant drop on the site, this would become less obvious. With regard to the Ministerial Statement, he reiterated that the Council did not know whether the failure to apply for planning permission was intentional, however there was no significant harm and mitigations were not required. The application did not affect important trees and vegetation, and the impact on wildlife had been considered, with Natural England not requesting further mitigation. Any future application would have to be carefully assessed, with further wildlife surveys and the exclusion zone checked. The officer had walked the site and believed that the red line was correct. Objectors had the right to go to Ombudsman, however the Council’s work was not defective, as all the issues had been considered. The Senior Planning Officer noted that that had been a Judicial Review regarding the gates on this site from a previous Planning Application, and the Council had not been found at fault. With regards to the fee, it was not possible to go back and ask for an increased fee once the application had been validated. He concluded that it was not possible to rule out further development on the site, and each application was considered on its merits.
The Chair asked for clarity on the response from the Highway Authority and was informed that as there was no change to access, and works had already been done, there was no severe impact on the local highway network.
The Committee discussed issues raised in the report and by the speakers. They noted that concerns seem to be based on a suspicion that any future construction would not be for agricultural purposes and asked whether the application could condition future development, for example that it could not be a caravan park. The Senior Planning Officer explained that it would not be possible to condition in that way, because no buildings were proposed under the application. If the applicants wished to put up a building that would not be used for agricultural purposes, they would need to apply for it. If an agricultural building was subsequently approved, under the prior approval system that potentially allowed for agricultural buildings, those buildings could not then be converted to other uses without permission.
At the Chair’s invitation, Lucy Mondon, Development Manager, made further points of clarification on issues raised by the speaker and in the late representation that had been forwarded as part of the amendment. The speaker had referred to agricultural permitted development. However, the application has been made for retrospective planning permission and was not made on the basis of agricultural permitted development at all. Furthermore, the Government’s national planning policy guidance was clear that Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) did not apply to retrospective applications. Finally, with regards to the Ombudsman complaint that has been filed in relation to this application, the Council's Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer had confirmed that this should not prevent the Planning Committee from determining the application as any investigation by the Ombudsman focused on administrative aspects of the application and not the decision itself.
RESOLVED (SEVEN VOTES FOR; FOUR ABSENTIONS): that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.