Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

Councillor J. Gooding, representing Trellech Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The Chicken Shed had been shortlisted for the Architecture gold medal at the 2016 Eisteddfod.  However, the Community Council considered that the building should never have been approved for conversion and enforcement action should have been undertaken with the property being demolished.

 

·         The message being sent out to the community is that people believe that they will be able to follow the example that has been set.

 

·         The Community Council considers that the applicant and / or agent appear to have shown contempt for the planning process.

 

·         The Community Council considers that the building has been a planning disaster from start to finish.

 

·         The Community Council has some sympathy with the current Planning officers who were not responsible for the errors. Measures are being put in place to prevent something similar happening again.  However, the public have not been informed of the error.

 

·         The consequences of this wrong message have been noticed as the Community Council had recently received an application, similar to the Chicken Shed, from a local resident.

 

·         When the Community Council received the original conversion application DC/2011/00823 it had recommended refusal and had added that if the Planning Department were minded to approve the application, a further independent structural survey should first be required.  This had not been done and approval had been granted.

 

·         When the building work commenced, the walls had been removed and the roof trusses had been cut back so that they could no longer reach the walls.  The Community Council considered that, at this stage, the old trusses could support the planned roof.  Construction should have been stopped at this stage but the County Council allowed it to continue.

 

·         The structure was then enclosed in a large tent.  When the tent was removed the building was structurally complete and the old roof trusses had been discarded. Enforcement officers were called in and found the discarded trusses lying on the side of the plot.  The applicants were then instructed to replace some of the old trusses into the building structure.

 

·         The interior picture supplied with the application shows two green additional trusses purporting to be the original trusses.  However, the Community Council considers that this was not possible.

 

·         The Community Council consider that the building is not a conversion.

 

The applicant Mrs. S. Peacock, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

 

·         The property had been purchased after planning permission had been granted.

 

·         After significant financial investment a substantial holiday letting business has been established.

 

·         The Architecture committee of the National Eisteddfod had shortlisted the building for the gold medal for architecture.

 

·         The Head of Planning had indicated that this is not the occasion to review or reconsider the grant of planning permission.  It is also not the occasion to consider the complaints about the manner in which the structure of the building is preserved.

 

·         The green trusses that were put back into the building are the original trusses.

 

·         The application does not give rise to an adverse precedent.

 

·         This is the occasion to regularise the planning permission.

 

·         The application is not substantially different to the application that was approved. The dimensional changes are not great.

 

·         Planning permission was granted on the basis that the building would require substantial reconstruction.

 

·         Building regulations had an impact on the final dimensions.

 

·         The fenestration changes do not change the nature of the development.

 

·         The applicant wanted the internal layout to be suitable for a holiday let.

 

·         The overall proportion of glass to cedar on the front elevation has not changed considerably.

 

·         There was no secrecy about the build. The changes were apparent on the face of the drawings submitted to the Council’s Building Control Department before work commenced.

 

·         It would be difficult to identify the difference in the dimensions and fenestration if compared with the original drawings.

 

·         The buildings appearance in the landscape remains unchanged.

 

·         It is a beautiful and successful building.

 

·         The risk of demolition should be removed today.

 

·         The applicant asked that the committee considers the planning officers’ recommendation.

 

The local Member for Trellech, also a Planning Committee Member stated that Trellech Community Council was right to raise the issues identified in the report and address the Planning Committee. However, she considered that the Committee should take a pragmatic approach when determining the application as the changes made to the building are minor and it is not harmful to the surrounding area.  The conditions imposed in the report of the application will ensure that the building is used only for tourism.  The property is adding to the local economy by bringing in tourism.  The application should therefore be approved.

 

In response to a Committee Member’s request, it was noted that condition 3 could be amended as follows:

 

·         To ensure that the property is occupied as holiday accommodation only in perpetuity.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members considered that the building was not substantially different to the original application and was an asset to the community.

 

The local Member summed up by supporting the application and thanked officers for rectifying the matter and presenting the application with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor D. Blakebrough and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2016/01440 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report, with an amendment to condition 3 to include ‘in perpetuity’.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

For approval              -           13

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2016/01440 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report, with an amendment to condition 3 to include ‘in perpetuity’.