Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons, as outlined in the report.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. D. Smith, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Planning approval was granted in 2014 for this conversion.  In December 2016 work commenced.

·         Inclement weather had destabilised the building.

·         The applicant had arranged for a health and safety specialist to visit the site resulting in a range of measures being taken to try and ensure that the building was saved.

·         The report describes the building as being demolished.  However, this was not the case.  The building had been dismantled for health and safety reasons due to ‘an act of God’.

·         There was no intent for the applicant to remove the building.

·         Appeals in case law exist for situations like this.  There are material considerations that can be considered with regard to this case.

·         The intent of the applicant and the outcome of development can be considered. The intent of the applicant has been to implement the consent.

·         The applicant had purchased internal frames in the sum of £10,500 which can only be used in this building.  If planning permission is not granted these will become redundant.

·         The applicant had met the unexpected costs to retain the building. However, for health and safety reasons the building could not be saved and had to be taken down.

·         Financial reasons can also be taken into account. This has cost the applicant £160,000 to date.

·         These special circumstances can be a mitigating factor in terms of determining the application.

·         In terms of the flooding issue, pre-application advice had been sought and flooding issues at the site had not been raised.  Officers had indicated that circumstances had not changed since 2016. 

·         Although the policy issues exist, the Planning Committee was asked by the applicant’s agent to consider the material considerations put forward in advance of this and say that they do not apply in this situation due to the circumstances faced by the applicant.

·         The Planning Committee was asked to approve the application on the basis of considering the application against the material considerations which can be applied to this application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the applicant’s agent, the following points were noted:

·         It was considered that the issue of the building being located on the flood plain could be circumvented by raising the ground level above the flood plain.

·         The foundations is the only part of the building that is left. Therefore, this application would be regarded as a new build in the countryside, would be located in a flood zone C2 and would be close to a brook.  The footprint would be the same as the original building. The building would be located in an open location, exposed to the elements and would not be the most appropriate location for a tourist / residential accommodation.

·         Planning Policy is clear in not allowing highly vulnerable developments in flood zone C2. Whilst consent had been granted in 2014, the stance being taken by Welsh Government in respect of TAN 15 and flooding policy has been clarified to the Planning Department.

·         In terms of case law, there is no building on this site and therefore, no building to convert.

It was proposed by County Councillor J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DM/2018/01339 be approved with appropriate conditions.

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

For approval              -           4

Against approval      -           5

Abstentions               -           2

The proposition was not carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01339 be refused for the two reasons, as outlined in the report.