Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering in to a Section 106 agreement to agree that the building is constructed in lieu of the previously consented dayroom/amenity building on 050463, subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and with an additional condition making it clear that permission applies only to the items specified in the description of development and not matters shown on the plan. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 22 February 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this application was requesting the relocation of the day room to locate it adjacent to the road side hedge in the north eastern corner of plot 5 and an increase in the size of the building was also being requested.  The officer explained that if the application was approved, the applicant would need to enter into a Section 106 agreement to agree that the building was constructed in lieu of the previously consented dayroom/amenity building on 050463. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Dave Mackie, said that as Members had rejected the previous application which had included the relocating of the static caravan on the plot, approval of this application would result in the day room being located right next to the location of the caravan.  Councillor Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in this and the previous application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell asked whether the hedgerow had been removed and the officer indicated that the hedge referred to was located near to the day room and if the previous application had been approved, it would have required the reinstatement of the hedge.  Councillor Mike Peers asked whether this proposal prevented the occupier of plot five from accessing the entrance and egress that was proposed under the appeal; the officer confirmed that the applicant would still be able to access the entrance.  

                        Councillor Peers suggested that the application be deferred as there were a number of issues about the hedge that required clarification and it was not clear that if the day room was moved where the occupier’s caravan would be situated.  Councillor Bithell said it was also not clear where the amenity building would be included on the site and that consideration of this item was on the assumption that the previous application had been approved.  The officer said that on the previously approved plan, the static caravan was located where the amenity building was now proposed to be and the static caravan was located where the touring caravan was proposed to be sited.  There was still room for the access and there would still be room for the amenity building and to be able to turn and park a touring caravan.  The officer also confirmed that this application could be approved and not affect the decision previously made. 

            Councillor Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Owen Thomas sought clarification of what was located on the west side of the site.  Councillor Peers said that the application was dealing with the increase in the size of the dayroom and raised concern that the entrance that had been refused on the application previously considered was shown on the plans being displayed for this application.  He asked whether there was an illustration showing the relocation of the dayroom and the originally approved internal road layout.  If not, he asked for written assurance of where the day room would be, ignoring all information about the access which had previously been refused.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the plan was indicating that the access had already been agreed which was incorrect as it had been refused on the previous application and he raised concern that this could be confusing when determining the application. 

            The Development Manager said that the application related only to the dayroom and that if Members were concerned, then a condition could be added that the permission related only to what was described in the description and specify what it did not apply to.  He added that nothing within this application would prejudice the applicant’s right to access the site by the private road which had been approved at appeal. 

            In response to Councillor Thomas’ question, the officer confirmed that the static caravan was located on the west side of the site.  The Development Manager confirmed that the proposed static caravan met the definition of a mobile home. 

            Councillor Butler requested that an additional condition be included relating to replacement of the hedge as shown in paragraph 7.04 of the previous application; this was duly seconded.  The Development Manager said that by refusing the previous application for the access, this development would be subject to that permitted at appeal which included a condition to retain the hedge and therefore barring an appeal on this application, the applicant would be in breach of the condition if it was not reinstated and enforcement action by the Council would be required. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering in to a Section 106 agreement to agree that the building is constructed in lieu of the previously consented dayroom/amenity building on 050463, subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and with an additional condition making it clear that permission applies only to the items specified in the description of development and not matters shown on the plan. 

                        After the vote had been taken, Councillor Mackie did not return to the meeting.