Retrospective application for retention of agricultural Building
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor W Gareth Roberts
Minutes:
Retrospective application for the retention of an agricultural shed
a)
The Development Control Officer elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that this was a retrospective application
to retain a steel frame agricultural building that was in the process of being
constructed. The current frame of the building suggested a mono pitch roof;
however, it was intended to finish the building with a pitched roof. It was
proposed that the building's external finish would be a combination of concrete
block wall and metal profile covering in dark green. The building is located in
the countryside outside any development boundary, and in an agricultural field
within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. It lay 5.5 metres from a one-storey dwelling which was a Grade II
listed building.
Attention was drawn to the relevant policies that
had been listed in the report along with the additional observations received.
It was
highlighted that the principle of approving buildings for agricultural use in the
countryside had been established by Policy D9 of the GUDP which approved
proposals to erect buildings for agricultural purposes if they were reasonably
required. The applicant's agent stated that the building was necessary to house
stock during occasional harsh weather and to store equipment associated with
stock that graze the land, and agriculture.
Since no details had been submitted regarding stock, consideration
should be given to place a condition restricting the building's use for
agricultural purposes only and the building should be demolished if the
agricultural use ended within a period of 10 years. Subject to the inclusion of the above
condition, it was considered that the proposal would conform to policy C1 and
D9 of the GUDP, and it would not undermine Policy PCYFF 1 of the Joint Local
Development Plan.
With
the site situated within a prominent position within the Llŷn
AONB, the need to reduce any impact on the AONB's visual amenities was
considered. Consequently, an amended
plan had been received (30 March 2017), showing the proposed building with a
pitched roof, and a reduction in the height of the final building 3.7 metres
above ground level - a 0.4 metre reduction.
In addition, it was intended to cover the building in dark green coloured
profile sheeting, as it would reduce the impact of the building on prominent
locations in the landscape. Observations had been received from the AONB
Officer noting that the adaptations would make the building less visible from
the road.
It was
explained that the nearest dwelling (apart from the applicant's property) to
the proposed building was situated approximately 30 metres from the site. Due to the size of the proposal and its
location in relation to the nearby property, it was not considered that the
development would cause significant harm to that property. In addition it was
not considered that the proposal was likely to affect the reasonable privacy of
users of the nearby property, nor that it would it entail an over-development of
the site.
Having
considered all information submitted as part of the application, it was
highlighted that the development was acceptable based on principle, location,
use, design, materials and the impact on visual amenities and that it complied
with relevant local and national planning policies and guidance.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak,
the applicant’s agent noted the following main points:-
·
that this was a very
small shed on a small parcel of land to provide shelter for animals - in
agricultural terms it was on a very small scale
·
amended plans showed a
pitched roof
·
the finished proposal would blend-in substantially
into the landscape
·
that discussions had been held with officers
regarding the appearance of the proposal
c)
The following main points
were made by the local member (not a member of this Planning Committee):
·
That he did not agree with the content of the
report which appeared as justification for the need to act retrospectively
·
That no attention had
been given to the nearby public footpath
·
It would be better to position the shed behind the
house - suggested that the site should be reconsidered
·
Despite the height adaptations, the shed would
remain high and would be likely to affect the house
·
The house was a small-holding, therefore the policy
needed to be considered in an 'agricultural' context
·
The Community Council was
dissatisfied with the design
ch) A proposal to undertake a site visit was
made and seconded.
d)
An amendment to defer the decision in order for
officers to re-assess the application, consider the location of the public
footpath and the justification for such a building and submit an amended report
was proposed and seconded.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to re-assess the application and submit an amended report.
Supporting documents: