Transcript

to the planning applications committee on Thursday 20th of June 2024. My name is Councillor Peter Wilkinson and I along with the members will make the decisions today. First of all I'll read out the webcasting script. I would like to inform everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the council. I the chair have discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it is my opinion that continuing to do so will prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. If you are seated in the public gallery it is likely that recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in this meeting are the speaker's own and they do not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Millers District Council. Please can members be aware that the webcast will continue to be streamed live 20 seconds after the close of the meeting. This is due to a time delay in transmitting a live. Introductions of members and officers. First of all officers to my far right I've got Hazel Birkinshaw Democratic Services Assistant, to her left I've got Sally Hampton Senior Democratic Services Officer and to her left I've got Sarah Beech Democratic Services Officer. To my left I've got Justin Price-Jones Legal Advisor and to his left Ben Awood Head of Development Services. Moving on to members, we'll start from the back. I've got Councillor Lim Swindler, Councillor Vicky O'Shea, Councillor Ian Plant, Councillor Ben Henry, Councillor Paul Roberts. In front of those I've got a new member, Councillor Adam Parks, sorry, Councillor Jonathan Kempster, then we've got Councillor Adam Parks. A warm welcome to you, it's your first meeting. Next to Adam I've got Councillor Mark Johnson and Councillor Keith Opthoff. At the far back I've got Councillor Oliver Poynton, in front of Oliver I've got Councillor Alan Yew, Councillor Keith Lundy. Moving on, is there any other announcements? There are none. Apologies for absence if any. There are one, we have apologies from Councillor Tony Holmes. The minutes of the previous meeting, can we move those to the correct record? Proposal and secondary. Moving on, any urgent items of business if any? There are none. Declarations of interest, first of all we've got Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. Councillor Adam Parks. It's a non peculiar interest. Yes, I live in the immediate vicinity of Agenda Item 11 which is SMD20240117 and due to that, how close I live to the application, I will stand out when that is discussed. So that's a pecuniary then? Is that a pecuniary, yes. So any further pecuniary interest to declare? I need you to turn your mark off. Moving on to other interests, Councillor Paul Roberts. Yes, Chair. Item Agenda 7, I know the majority of the speakers. It's also my ward and the Councillor for. Also Item Agenda 8, we have got a Councillor for that and also a previous employee of this Council. So I would say that is for everybody else as well. And also declare interest on Number 9, we, Councillor Mark De Ville, even though the letter is being read out. Other than that, I'm okay. Thank you. Any further other interests? Councillor Ian Plante. Yes, I know the speakers on Item 9 and also, yes, just the speakers on Item 9 just at the moment. Thank you. Councillor Keith Lunder. Thank you, Chair. Item Number 12, the tree in Brownedge, I am both the District and County Councillor for that area. Not that it's within spitting distance, Item Number 11, I am a County Councillor in Biddulph as well. Thank you. Councillor Vicky O'Shea. Thank you, Chair. Just to say, on Item 8, I'm the Ward Councillor for that area. Thank you. Any other interests? Moving on to lobbying interests, any, Councillor Paul Roberts. Item Agenda 7, Chair, I've been lobbied. Councillor Ian Plante. Item Agenda 9, I've been lobbied on that one as well and also I am the Ward Councillor for that particular area, sorry. Yeah, I'm going to declare lobbying on a general Item 8. I've been lobbied on that. Any other lobbying interests? Moving on, the Late Representations Report, have we all had, Councillor Keith Lunder. In addition to being the County and District Councillor, I have been lobbied by email this morning on Item Number 12. I didn't respond. Right, any further lobbying? Right, we'll move on. Late Representations Report, have we all seen sight of that? Yes. Now, the agenda, we're going to, on the agenda, we're going to move Agenda Item 12, the TPO, up to Number 2 on the list, well, in front of 8. So, we'll do the first one as the agenda stands, but then we'll move the TPO up the list for personal circumstances of one of the applicants. So, we'll start with Item Agenda 7, SMD 2020/0147, Springfield Farm, Hume Lane, Warrington. Can the speakers come forward? Mr Awood. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. This application relates to Springfield's Farm, Hume Lane at Warrington. That is the application site edged in red on the plan in front of you, and it essentially comprises a former agricultural building, which is located here, and an associated former farmyard area. The house itself sits outside of the application site down here to the south, as do a number of other outbuildings. Members may recall that planning permission was recently granted for a change of use of the existing agricultural building to a retail use to allow for the sale of cold food for consumption either as takeaway or for consumption on the premises, principally ice cream, but also limited by condition to other cold foods such as sandwiches, with the exception of hot pies. The actual premises itself inside was fairly limited, restricted mainly to a counter aerial from where food was served. This application seeks to change the use of the remainder of the agricultural building to a cafe and tea room, and as members were able to see on their site visit this morning, quite a bit of that work has already been carried out and the conversion has already taken place. So just to run through the proposal for you, this is the site itself, this is the building in question, this is the site access and as members were able to observe this morning, the visibility spray condition which was attached to the previous consent has been complied with and the visibility spray has now been provided. This is the agricultural building or former agricultural building itself viewed from the site access. This is the proposed internal layout of the building, as you can see there's the counter area here, a large commercial kitchen is proposed behind along with the area which is changed to a dining space. So as you can see on the photographs the kitchen area has already been installed with commercial cooking facilities, extraction facilities etc. A play area has also been formed inside of the building and that's a photograph of one of the dining areas which again members were able to observe on site this morning. So in terms of the main planning considerations with this application, the site is within the green belt, however the change of use of existing buildings within the green belt is acceptable in principle provided there isn't a harmful impact on openness. Therefore given that no external changes are proposed to the building, we don't find that there would be any conflict with green belt policy in that regard. With regard to the suitability of the location, officers acknowledge this is an unsustainable location for development of this nature, however we already have the established ice cream parlour use and it's not considered that the proposed introduction of the cafe use provided it's restricted by similar opening hours would result in a significant uplift in vehicle movements to and from the site and we don't feel that a refusal on sustainability grounds could be sustained. Similarly in terms of highway impacts as you'll see from your report, there are no highway objections from the local highway authority and they also consider that there would not be a significant increase in additional vehicle movements. With regard to residential amenity, we need to bear in mind that this application is confined purely to the change of use of the existing building and whilst clearly the intensification of the use has the potential to have impacts on residential amenity, particularly arising from things like cooking smells etc. As you've seen from your report, there are no environmental health objections and given that the development is contained within the existing building, subject to usual conditions around things like extraction systems, we don't consider that there would be an adverse impact on residential amenity and we don't therefore consider that there are grounds for refusal on those grounds. One other matter that you may be aware of from the letters of representation that we have received, there are a number of issues which have been raised by local residents in connection with other potentially unauthorised developments at the site, other potential breaches of previous planning conditions which have been reported to us and those are the subject of separate enforcement investigations. However, this application concerns itself primarily with the change of use of the building and the introduction of the cafe use only, so it's important that members separate that out in their minds. So for those reasons we find that the proposal complies with policy and we don't find that there are sustainable grounds for refusal and we are recommending the application for approval this afternoon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. We've got five speakers, three speaking against. The first speaker speaking against the application is Andy Beckett. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Although I'm speaking here in opposing the application, I'd like to be clear in a way that I'm not specifically opposed to whatever the applicant sells in here, whether it's hot food, arts and crafts materials and everything else. It's concerned about the environmental impact that's had on this facility. We've been farming the land. We farm the land just immediately north of this. I know with ourselves, I know the farm just immediately to the east. We have planted over 10,000 trees in the last few years because we're very concerned about the environment and things there. I'm very pleased that the council overall has made a nature recovery declaration which acknowledges that they are facing a nature crisis. For me, seeing the wildlife habitats destroyed and animals killed, wild animals killed because of this facility is heartbreaking and that's why I'm here. When we sat here six months ago, I did feel that our objections were not listened to or maybe it was that we didn't put our case across well enough, which has sadly resulted in significant impact on the environment. Having said that, I'm very pleased to see that the conditions recommended by the Planning Officer do help prevent further damage to the environment, particularly in the use of the green belt land for parking and activities outside of the current building. As such, although I say I'm sat here talking to the objective, I'm willing to move to approval with those conditions as provided by the Planning Officer and any other conditions that the councillors may put on to restrict the over-development of the site. One other thing I would ask on there is actually about the sandpit in there, which either the applicant could voluntarily do or the committee to put a condition on there. The existing cockpit should have been removed. It was after enforcement, but then it's been put back in a slightly different place, and I see that there is a condition that formal planning should be applied for. I would ask that that sandpit is not used at all until that has been through planning and either approved or refused to reduce the noise and the impact from that. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Jane McGowan. You've got three minutes, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. As we all know, Bobby's Ice Cream Parlour has been serving hot food since it reopened at the beginning of May this year, even though planning made very clear points as to why hot food was not to be sold on the development, condition two of that application. These are the points you made. To avoid intensification of the use to the detriment of highway safety, residential amenity, and the character of the area. In view of this statement, could the planner please clarify at the end how these three valid points have changed since December? I do have some sympathy for planning. You gave Bobby's Ice Cream Parlour a golden opportunity in December last year when you approved this application. Unfortunately for planning, the Ice Cream Parlour has been completely disrespectful of the approved conditions and drawings. As many of you know, there are various enforcement actions being dealt with regarding this development, and as there has been a lot of unauthorised works taking place. To date, it looks like Bobby's Ice Cream Parlour has taken away any control that planning had over this development, and therefore planning are unable to safeguard the character and amenity of the area. I do understand it's not your fault and that the Ice Cream Parlour chooses to operate in this way, but I think some due diligence needs to be applied and control taken back. Me personally, and I think my neighbours, I feel that we have no voice in this development. Planning have demonstrated no understanding or good interaction with us. As a government department, shouldn't you be treating all sides equal and showing transparency in your decisions? We are ordinary people, and we are fighting for our peace, privacy and quiet. We do not want to stop Mr Taylor from operating his Ice Cream Parlour. All of the above said, I think we need to move forward in a positive direction. I think the planning department has another golden opportunity here, to give Bobby's Ice Cream Parlour his development that he wants, and also lessen the impact on the neighbours' privacy. He has two fields, the first to the north, which is surrounded by his immediate neighbours, and the second to the south with no houses around it. If all the outside development, so his sitting area, sand pits, has just moved to the south fields, there would be an immediate creation of a barrier in the form of his barn, his outbuildings and his house, that would afford visual privacy instantly to his neighbours, and lessen the volume of noise being further away. And there'd also be the added bonus that children carrying ice creams would not have to cross move in traffic. If this scheme or something similar could be considered, we would all have the opportunity to work together to create something that is good, sustainable and beneficial to all parties. I don't think this application today should pass or fail, I don't care. I think it needs reconsideration as part of a bigger picture. I think Staffordshire Moorland's planning has a fantastic opportunity here today, to work with all parties. At the end of the day, we've all got to live next door to each other, and it would be nice to have something to build bridges off. Thank you. Very well said. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Gary Ibs, you've got three minutes, thank you. Thank you very much. Just to reiterate what my neighbours have said, I have no concern whatsoever about whether Bobby's sell hot or cold food, it's quite irrelevant. Our main concerns has always been, and maybe not said, as Andrew said in the first place, maybe not put in the right words, where we'd had prior to the application being granted last year, we'd had six or seven months of sheer hell. We had children screaming every day of the week, we'd got loud music, we'd got various things, high volumes of traffic, and this caused a massive impact on each of our lives. In no way have I ever said that we don't want this business to take place. We think it's a great idea, and we said that last year, I went and said that personally to Mr and Mrs Taylor. I wish them well with the venture. What we didn't want is we didn't want to be part of that business. We don't want to take on what is left over from what that business causes, and that is making our lives very difficult to live. I'm a 61-year-old man, I've got severe heart failure, my heart is running at 28 per cent, I'm currently waiting to go onto the list for a new heart. This is the very, very last thing as I need. I'm not saying this should be shut down, this should be controlled, and it should be looked at and be controlled. He shouldn't be able to get away with what he gets away with by thinking he can do whatever he wants at any time he wants. At no time have we ever said that we don't want this business. We do. We think every farm, every small farm in the Staffordshire Moorlands District should think about diversification, just to make them thrive. If I was younger and fitter, it's exactly what I'd be doing. But please, consider your neighbours, consider the people that live in your vicinity, because they can only do you good in the end. The people around you, we all need somebody around us to look after what we're doing and look at what we're doing. Don't try to upset your neighbours by doing the things that they clearly don't want. Mr and Mrs McGowan have built a beautiful house at the end of their careers where they want to retire, and they want peace and quiet, and that has been invaded by this business. We thought we were going to get our peace back by the conditions that were applied to this planning permission last year. Well, we did to a certain extent, and then all of a sudden the sandpit comes back and the toys appear back outside. And this cannot happen. Thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you. We've got two speakers speaking for the application. The first speaker is Natalie Taylor. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Mr Chairman, members of the Planning Committee, I would like to thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. Since you granted us permission to go ahead with bobbies, things have been going well. The indoor seating has helped us to make the site much calmer and quieter. There are no crowds of people outside, nor do we have any food vans. We have created the visibility display that was asked of us, and we plan to plant the new hedge rows during the next planting season. We have made arrangements with a local primary school and scout group to help with this. We have been working closely with our local councillors and your officers. We have made contact with planning officers to gain advice for different things. The application has shown no objections from our local parish council. Highways have given their approval, and environmental health have too. The proposal will not impact the green belt, nor will it give rise to any harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal will not increase the number of people visiting the site, and overall will not have any greater impact than the scheme that you have already approved. The policies of your local plan and national planning policy framework give support to farm diversification schemes such as this. We really do hope that it will meet your approval. In conclusion, I believe that we are asking for a small change, and if granted, it will allow us to continue and make the site used more for indoor, this meaning less people outside, less noise, less crowds. This would be an advantage to all. I hope that the committee will give me and my family the approval and green light to make a success of our small family-run business that we all work very hard for. Thank you for your time, Natalie. Thank you very much. The final speaker is Andrew Wrye. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the council. Thank you for letting me have this time. I'm just a neighbour from just around the corner of Bobby's Ice Cream, and I just want to take this time to talk about the positives of what the farm and Bobby's has done for the community. It's made a tremendous impact on Wellington, actually put them on the map rather than driving past the Young Offenders Institution every day of my life, so I thank them for that. I also thank them for putting everything into the local community, employing 12 young ladies all from Wellington, two young boys all from Wellington, Pat who's retired from Wellington. On top of that, they buy all the local timber, the local produce, the cakes, all the butcher's stuff. Everything comes from the local environment. And I'd also like to say that I took my family there two weeks ago, and I've got four children and their partners and my grandson and my mum and dad. And during the times of Covid, my mum and dad never came out. I take them there for afternoon tea. She's got cancer and she absolutely thoroughly enjoyed it. She hasn't been out for a couple of years and she's enjoyed our company, enjoyed Bobby's, enjoyed the time there, enjoyed seeing a grandchild play on the tractors, see the pygmy goats, the alpacas, the donkeys, and that was all encouraging. And everyone had a good day out. Also, I'd just like to say my wife's sister who's got stress and anxiety, who's got two young daughters, lives in Ballygreen, took her children there. She finally got out of the house. She's lost her job and she went there on the toddler's group that they do with parents and she's made life better for her. I also think from a dilapidated building, it's quite an eye-catching building now and it's all lit up at night. I think it's good for the environment. I think it's good for the people of Wellington. And we've got something to be proud of. It's even, everyone's talked about it on Facebook. You're looking at the Birmingham Press, they're talking about it. Everyone's coming from all over the city. It puts a new rejuvenated Wellington where it should be. It's a nice, lovely village. The co-oper barely fit in. The Red Cow was always closing down. That's always full now because they go in there first for a drink and then they go bobby's for an ice cream. The Windmill are doing well. Sheerley's Transport, which is up the road, they're all filling the cars and the van's up there. And it's just a privilege that we've got somewhere like Bobby's because other than that, you've got Snugbreeze, which is a 50-minute drive away. You've got Amerton Farm where you've got to pay. It's all free. As for the children crossing for ice creams, the parents have got to be with the children all the time, crossing that little road. It's one way in. It's one way out. I think they've done a lot for the environment. I think they've done a lot for what you've said on the planning side. And where they're selling cakes, ice cream, sausage rolls, they do a lot for Wellington. Is that time off? Oh, crikey. Okay. Sorry about that. I didn't say everything I wanted to say, but there we go. Okay, thank you. Mr Abel, did you want to come back? Thanks, Jay. Yeah, just really to reiterate the point that I made during the presentation about just focusing on what this application relates to, which is the change of use of the building itself. We've heard quite a bit from the speakers about concerns regarding things going on around the building, concerns about the sandpit and play area and things like that. Just to be clear that the approved scheme that you approved previously did include an external seating area in this part of the site here, so that is authorised. But there were a number of conditions attached. There were a number of advisors that we put on that consent. Those will all be repeated onto the current application, if you're minding to approve it this afternoon. Some of the issues that have been raised there do relate to ongoing enforcement matters, which are in hand and will be dealt with separately. Obviously, if the applicant wishes to vary any of those existing conditions or apply retrospectively for unauthorised works which have taken place, then it's within their gift to do so and that will need to be considered on its own merits, as and when that comes before you. But today, the application is for the change of use of the building, so just to clarify that. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Keith Flunde. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, speakers. I think you've made your voices heard and I think we have heard them. Unfortunately, I don't think we can take any of the conditions that we had on the first application from what the office has said and to extend the conditions on that respect. However, I think your voices have been heard, hopefully by the applicant today and that the red line, although it doesn't, the purple line, doesn't actually include south of Springfield House and the field that we looked at today. There's no reason technically why you couldn't come back and ask for that information and that facility to grow that way in the future, you know, and to take it away from your neighbours in the Northfield. So that really rests with you to work with residents to try and come back with something that I think will be more in keeping with what the residents want. I don't want to see anything else interfere with what is effectively a great business. It fits in within the tourism strategy, it fits within our local plan, it does everything that we want it to do. When we walked around today, the facilities were great, the toddler's groups, the play areas, everything else are helping the local community keep their sanity together by the sounds of it as well. I do think that a piece of careful hedge lane, another maybe another hedge in the Northfield as well, you know, to the north of the site to block that view and to stop the sound from going that way towards the neighbours. There's a lot you could do to improve the environment for the local residents to the north. I just hope you take those on. Unfortunately, I don't think we can put those on as conditions today, because we're just purely looking at change of use. On that remit and on the fact that I think what I saw today was very good, and I thought it was a facility that has and has created jobs and will continue to create jobs and everything else. I want to put that forward as for approval. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, Chair. I just hope that the applicant has listened to what the residents require. As for conditions, I think Condition 20, what we've put on today, was put on before. I think we need to act on that as soon as possible. Reference the barriers for the car parking at the front. Just a bit of clarification. The overflow car park, can we put a Condition on the no hard core or anything like that as put down on that field, or can we not? Thanks, Chair. If we were talking about surfacing any overflow parking, that would be an engineering operation. It would be operational development, which would require permission in its own right, aside from any use. Okay, thank you for that. As for the Condition over the tree, the edges and everything else, I think I asked for that Condition to be put on around the seating area last time, so I hope that is done as soon as possible to sort that out. I think the applicant needs to talk to the residents to see, as Councillor Flunde said, that move the seating area possibly to the other field further down, away from it, and then I think that will clear the way to a lot of less agro, can I put it that way? I feel sorry for the residents for getting that. I hope that the play pit is probably removed so that we don't have to do enforcement action, and I hope the applicant works with the planning officers. Enforcement action is the last resort. We don't like to do it. If we can get it worked out and get it done quickly, the better. I will just wait and see what everybody else has to say. Thank you. Mr Barr Johnson. Thank you. It is indeed a pleasant and thriving business to briefly visit, but I don't think that is the end of the story. I share some of what has already been expressed. I know that enforcement we must put to one side, but there has been a lot of presumptive building or use on this site, and that doesn't fill me with confidence. We heard the last time that the applicant was before that they wanted to be a good neighbour, and clearly in many ways it is believed, and we believe them, that in many ways they have been in the village, but in planning matters they do not seem to have been, and that worries me, because no matter how good a business is, we do have a planning system, and it exists to protect the interests of residents, such as those who are before us, and who I have to say impress me with anything other than a NIMBY approach, a very constructive approach. So I am going to sort of stand clear and hear what other people said, but I just want to put my worries on that score on record. So in other words you are saying it is a retrospective rather than an actual application? Well I am not sure, perhaps we could get clarity. As a change of use, it clearly is retrospective in terms of change of use. I am not quite sure what that means in terms of a planning application. I understand what retrospective planning application is, but to me yes this does seem to have an element of retrospective change of use. We saw what was out, we went in there today and saw what was happening. Thank you, Chair. Applicants and developers are entitled to apply retrospectively for planning permission if they wish to do so. In terms of your consideration of the application, you still consider it in exactly the same way. It is still a full planning application, whether it is retrospective or whether the development hasn't commenced. You still need to assess the proposal against the policies in your local plan and any other material considerations. The fact that something is retrospective shouldn't be a point in its favour or indeed against it. You have to judge it in line with policy and make your decision accordingly. Thank you, Chair. Did you want to come back on that? Yes, that is clear enough. I guess to be clear then that element of retrospection I am not quite sure why people didn't apply before or talk before to the planning department, but I get what you are saying. It is compounding with my worries about enforcement which I must put to one side. Councillor Oliver Poynton. Thank you, Chair. It was just that I support the application and second the recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Adam Parkes. Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I was sort of making a few notes while people were speaking and would like to congratulate all the speakers for what they said. One of you, unfortunately, used the term this is a perfect opportunity, and I think it is. I think this is a perfect opportunity not just with regard to this planning application. For me, it is the perfect opportunity for what has become the two sides to this situation to actually sit down together and make this work, because to your great credit, and my good friend to the left here used the term completely not MIMBY, you weren't. In fact, none of you actually criticised the business whatsoever. It was to do with other aspects, and you are to be massively praised for that. But based on what we as a planning committee have got before us now, which is simply a change of use application, we have to go basically on that, and therefore I will support that application. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ian Plann. Yes, could I just have clarification on the conditions we put on last time regarding the bollards or something to be put in front on the verge when the hedge was taken out? Because obviously we could deal with that being done ASAP. I appreciate that. It has probably only recently been done, but it wants carrying out ASAP because we are getting into the busy season, and I would not like to see anything else happen down that stretch of road by people parking on the road itself or even on that verge. Thank you. Mr Aywood. Thanks, Chair. Yes, it was Condition 22, I think, on the previous consent that required the bollards or stones to be positioned on the grass verge within four months of the date of that decision. As you saw on site this morning, a couple of stones have been placed on site, but obviously that is not satisfactory in order to prevent vehicles altogether from parking on that area, and that is something which our enforcement officers are dealing with at the moment. Yeah, I think the major concerns are highway safety and residential amenity, so I think there needs to be dialogue between the applicant and the residents to drive this forward, but the thing that we are considering here is actually a change of use, but moving forward it does need to be monitored and I think there needs to be more dialogue between the applicant and the residents so there is not an impact on amenity. Any further speakers? Thank you, Chair. Listening to this, reading the first page of the application it says a name and planning consultant. Has the planning consultant been consulted? Has what the planning consultant said been taken notice of, and is the planning consultant going to work with the Council, not just go up and do as a tangent what they do themselves? I think there needs serious consideration that they do what they are supposed to do in regard to planning, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? So we have got a recommendation to approve the application proposed by Councillor Keith Lunder, seconded by Councillor Oliver Poynton, if you are in favour of approval, is there any additional conditions that we need to, have we got the sand pit removal of the sand pit in there? I think, Chair, that is covered under the enforcement of the previous application. Right. If you are in favour of approval, raise your hands. Any objections? Any abstentions? You have your approval. Thank you. So we are moving straight to the TPO, TPO2024/0005 application to fell a protected tree, one Bank End, Brown Edge. Can the speakers come forward, please? And we have got Steve Massey to introduce the application when the speaker is in position. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair. This application seeks consent to fell a mature sycamore tree situated in the garden of 1 Bank End, Brown Edge, which is protected as T117 under TPO number SM4. There is a site plan showing the tree in the corner of the garden. I will just run through two or three photos showing the tree. Just to advise Committee that Brown Edge Parish Council has strongly objected to the application. The applicants made a similar application to fell this same tree in 2016. This was refused by Planning Applications Committee in accordance with officer recommendation and there was no subsequent appeal. The reasons for the previous application were related to issues such as excessive shading, falling leaves and minor debris and the applicant's perception of the potential for future structural damage to the house arising from root action, although no actual damage was noted or claimed or even suggested at the time. The current application, again, cites general nuisance issues such as excessive shading, pollen, fallen tree debris, in particular fallen leaves which create a slip hazard on garden paths and the public highway pavement adjacent and excessive self-set seedlings. The applicants consider the tree to be too large for its small garden position, thereby exacerbating such problems. The applicants state a general concern that due to the size of the tree and its proximity to their house and its position on high ground relatively exposed to prevailing southwesterly winds, there is potential for significant property damage and of course personal danger should the tree fall. Their worries have increased as a result of large trees having recently fallen elsewhere. Since the previous application, the applicants have a significant change in personal circumstances as they now have a young son who is disabled and they advise that he cannot readily use the garden because shade and minor debris from the tree are detrimental to his health and wellbeing. In particular, he is vulnerable to respiratory conditions and the applicants say that the tree produces large volumes of pollen in spring. Finally, the applicants note that they cannot both work due to the care needs for their son and the cost of employing a tree surgeon to carry out annual pruning are prohibitively expensive on a single salary. In terms of the problems actually experienced in relation to the tree, i.e. pollen, fallen leaves and other minor debris, shade, seedlings etc., these are simply the normal natural seasonal characteristics of a mature deciduous tree. Sycamore pollen is noted as moderately allergenic and sycamore is largely an insect pollinated species so does not rely on producing large quantities of airborne pollen but nonetheless will produce pollen along with other plants in the area. Committee members may wish to consider what weight you attach to the applicants' personal family circumstances and how these may be influenced by the tree's natural processes but such inevitable seasonal consequences arising from the presence of trees are not normally regarded as sufficient justification to allow the loss of a protected tree. Our tree protection policies and the Council's adopted tree strategy would not normally support the loss of a protected tree for these reasons. The sycamore is a large tree in prominent view from public locations, principally from Bank End Highway and the path leading down to Thelmer Avenue but also from elsewhere in the village and is considered to make a notable contribution to the landscape character of this part of the village and to have significant public amenity value which would be completely lost should the tree be removed. The current owners replaced the previous conservatory with a more recent two storey side extension on a very slightly larger footprint, both these developments closing the original gap between the original house and the tree and providing greater internal living space at the expense of garden area. But the 2018 planning application for the present two storey extension was assessed for both its potential impact on and its relationship with the protected sycamore but was considered to be acceptable and planning permission was duly granted. No professional arboriculture report has been submitted in support of the application on tree safety grounds, although to be fair the applicants have not suggested they believe the tree to be in dangerous condition. They simply have a not uncommon general concern over the potential for tree failure. The Sycamore T117 currently appears to be in good condition structurally and physiologically with nothing noted to indicate that its failure in whole or in significant part is particularly likely to occur. A quantified tree risk assessment of this tree indicates a statistical risk of harm ranging from one in 300,000 to less than one in one million comfortably within the tolerable to acceptable ranges and indicating that there is no justification on tree safety grounds to allow its removal. The failure of other trees in another village elsewhere does not increase the likelihood of failure of this tree T117 nor add justification for allowing it to be felled. The applicants have not detailed what annual pruning they may wish to carry out but as the tree is protected any significant work would anyway require an application to and consent from the local planning authority which may or may not be granted depending on the details of any proposal. Removal of any deadwood or broken branches may be carried out under exemption but is very unlikely to be needed every year anyway for a healthy tree such as this. Removal of the small epicormic shoots arising from around the base and up the stem below the main crown may also be carried out under exemption and is often within the reasonable capabilities of tree owners to undertake themselves and thereby not necessarily requiring the services of a tree surgeon. It would not normally be anticipated that healthy mature trees such as this Sycamore reasonably requires work on an annual basis and the cost of tree maintenance when needed and if applicable when allowed should not be regarded as justification to allow the removal of a protected tree. As with any application for GPO consent I would draw attention to section 6.4 of the report which acknowledges the potential issue of compensation for loss or damage arising as a consequence of the council's decision subject to various regulatory provisions. In conclusion it is considered that the reasons for the application are insufficient to justify allowing removal of T117 and our recommendation is therefore that consent be refused for the reasons set out in our report. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have got three speakers speaking for the application. The first speaker is Lisa Cuthbertson. You've got three minutes. Good afternoon. I've come here today to support and represent the Cuthbertson family, my son and daughter-in-law, in favour of the potential felling of the Sycamore tree situated in their garden. Sycamore characteristics are fast growth, large leaves and dense branches leading to waxy autumn leaves that don't break down and create slimy mess causing issues with guttering and drains. It is noted that property insurance suggests a Sycamore tree of 24 metres high should be 70 metres from the property. It's our view that the tree is of a disproportionate size in relation to the small garden. Sycamore trees can be found to damage house foundations giving potential for subsidence as they do suck up moisture and dry out land. Neighbours of the family are equally frustrated as to the sheer size of the tree and equally concerned in the case of wind and storm damage if the tree was to fall in the direction of their property. It is to be noted that often during storms, trees that fall or are uprooted are not always diseased or of a poor condition. In the last six months, there have been 11 official storms recorded in the UK and it's a known fact that due to climate change, storms are to become more frequent and more severe. This therefore reinforces the dangerous close proximity of the tree and its overhang and the potential hazard it presents to the family and the neighbouring property. The family sleep beneath the canopy of the tree and on a stormy night are kept awake, concerned that the tree could at any time fall on their property in the wake of ferocious winds potentially causing serious injury. The tree has grown significantly since last being crowned in 2015 and this can be actually seen on Google Earth. The family who now rely on one income due to having a disabled son cannot frequently afford to have the tree pruned, therefore the tree is going to grow taller, wider and more dense, further exacerbating the hazard to life and property. Please do consider the family in relation to your decision as family life with a disabled child is extremely challenging and causes a significant amount of stress and has a bearing on their mental health and wellbeing. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Margaret Fletcher. You've got three minutes. Thank you. The Sycamore tree is huge. It's about 60 feet in height with a spreading canopy. It's a meadow tree. It's not a garden tree. My grandson and his wife were over the moon to be able to afford their house in 2014. They love their house. They have good neighbours and enjoy the community spirit of Brown Edge. When our family saw the house and of course the tree, we naturally thought they would cut it down. Friends and other relatives thought the same. Our grandson told us about the TPO on this tree. We just thought that the TPOs were for old oak trees, not Sycamore trees, which are very common. In time, they asked permission to cut the tree down. This was refused, but they could take 8% off it. They had this done, but of course, with any reducing or pruning, it invigorates a plant, shrub or tree and it's grown much bigger and bushier since then. They had their daughter in 2016 and hope to complete their family. They applied to have a third bedroom and an extension to the small kitchen. Happily, this was agreed by the planning division, but over concern for the distance of the tree, there was a limit on the extension. It's a one room with house, so you can see the tree from every window. When me and my late husband visited our grandson, wife and little daughter, we would stand sometimes and look at the tree. We would watch it thrash about in the winds. It stood like a giant skeleton in the winter, and in summer, it blotted out the sun, and the movement of the loaded branches was incredible. We both thought it should be cut down because if it ever fell, it would crash on all the bedrooms and the rooms below. Now, my grandson and his wife have a very disabled son. He can't crawl, walk, talk or blink. He'll be four in December, and he and his mom spend a lot of time in the house. He is fed by tube and has to have his feeds at set times. The first thing you see when entering the room is the tree through the patio door. He sits in front of that door in his special chair hooked up to his feeding tube. The tree contributes to spring pollen count, and he is very vulnerable to it. It causes him to have chest infections, and he has to have antibiotics to get through spring. There is always debris below the tree, which makes it impossible to place the little one outside. The ton of leaves in autumn are a hazard to all. No, the Sycamore does nothing for the family or their garden. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Rebecca Cuthbertson. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. So, I live at the property with my husband, my seven-year-old daughter and my three-and-a-half-year-old son. I am a full-time carer for my son. He's got highly complex needs. He's got a very rare condition, which is one in 500,000, and that's happened to us. So, what's to say? One in 300,000 isn't going to happen to us. Due to his needs, he is unable to walk. He's fully peg-fed, unable to blink. He requires regular eye drops. Life is really difficult, so going out is very tricky to public places. Our own garden should be our safe space. It should be where he can enjoy his time, and due to the tree, the debris that falls from the tree, which isn't light debris, small debris, it's quite big branches that we spend on a daily basis picking up, and we can't pick it up quick enough because it's all fallen again. He has sensory-seeking behaviours, therefore we need a safe space for him to go. This has really affected our mental health. It's put a strain on our family. We're trying our hardest to navigate this journey, and this just really is not helping at all. We want the best family life possible. The house, when we're in the house, the house is very dark. The house is very cold. We can't go outside. We feel trapped in our own homes. The gas and electric bills are very unaffordable due to the shade, due to the coldness, all because of the tree. It's very, very worrying. The tree sways in the wind. We can see it from all windows, thrashing about. We're just constantly kept awake at night, worried the tree is going to fall. We're really not against nature. We like going out. We love the village that we live in, but it's just too sizeable for our garden to be so close to with a family. We want a safe space for a family, and we really, really wish for you to consider this for us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Steve Massey, you want to come back on that? There's not much more that I need to say, other than the preservation order has been on this and a good number of other trees in the village since 1976, so obviously the presence of the tree and its protective status should have been apparent prior to purchase. I appreciate that more recent circumstances have changed for them, and that is since they bought the house, of course, but they could have and should have known that it was a protective tree before they chose to move there. Thank you, members. Would anyone like to open this one up? Councillor Mark Johnson. Yes, we'll have immense sympathy for being the mother of a disabled child, but I think what we're looking at relates to the property, and we can't actually make decisions for one child in a family, and that just isn't the way it works. I think the reasons for upholding the tree protection order are many, and we're certainly elucidated by the tree protection officer. I just point generally to the fact that despite the increase in storms in bad weather, I just don't think we can go about culling trees that are near houses unless there's real risk and demonstrable risk. We would be absent of trees. Visiting that area is clear. One of the beauties of the area is the trees, and I'm sure that's, in fact, one of the reasons why houses are so desirable in this area. I didn't see any evidence that there was a specific link on the pollen or anything to your child's condition that may have been more compelling or may have been not. I think, unfortunately, there is no reason to go against the officer's recommendation, so I will move to uphold the tree protection order. I won't second it. I will leave it up to others if they wish to second that proposal. Just being a local Councillor, I just wanted to let other people know that the community very much speaks for the tree, unfortunately. That's what's been said, and I've been lobbied on those remits. Looking at it from personally my view as being part of this planning committee, I can't see any reason like anyone else's to actually allow anyone to fell that tree. It's part of the canopy of Brown Edge. It has been so for 100 years at least, we think, and unfortunately if we went around cutting down trees in people's gardens because they're just in the way, we would have a lot less trees in the world, and in fact, trees reduce CO2, and they're part of the solution to reducing storms. So I think that there's something here that does need to be looked at, unfortunately, in the cold light of day, and I do hope that the applicant understands that the tree itself represents more to do with the community and environment in its own right. So, therefore, I think I hope others, someone else will second it because I don't think I ought to be in the local Councillor. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Paul Roberts. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm going to echo really what Councillor Johnson has said. Unfortunately, we've got, as I've said earlier on, we've got to think what our heads say, not our hearts, and I fully understand the circumstances of the applicant, you know, and it does tug at heartstrings, you know, and things like that, but unfortunately, we have to do it on planning considerations, and that's where it becomes very hard for us, and we have to make our decisions. So I'm going to second the motion to keep the TPO. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Jonathan Campster. >> Yeah, I very much, well, on the one hand, I do understand the concerns which you have. I also live on a property where trees are quite nearby. It can be quite a cause for concern and anxiety at times, particularly when it's very windy, but aside from that, I also echo the thoughts of other Councillors as well. It has been recognised as no immediate risk of the tree falling or shedding branches. The tree has been identified in good condition, and I see ourselves in many respects as guardians in terms of the trees for the community, and we have to look to the future, not just in terms of, as Councillor Paul Roberts has said, not just in terms of the present and the present occupants, but also for the future of the community as well. So I will be supporting the officer's recommendation. I'm sorry, thank you. Any further speakers? So I've got a recommendation by Councillor Mark Johnson, seconded by Councillor Paul Roberts, to refuse the request to fell the Sycamore tree at 1 Bank End, Brownedge. If you're in favour of the refusal of the consent, raise your hand. Unanimous, I'm sorry, we don't offer your consent. Thank you. Right, we'll move back to Agenda Item 8, SMD 2020/0148, Paddicall's Cheatley Question Centre, East Lane. Can the speakers come forward, please? Mr Raywood to introduce the application. >> Thank you, Chair. This application relates to an existing equestrian workers' dwelling at Cheadle Equestrian Centre, which is at Paddicall's East Lane Cheadle, subject to a site visit this morning. The dwelling in question is located over here in the western corner of the site. Members may recall that this dwelling was recently constructed following a planning consent which was granted by the planning committee under a 2021 application reference number, 2021/05/06. Prior to that, there had been a refusal for an equestrian workers' dwelling on this site, which I think members were satisfied there was a need for such a dwelling, but had concerns regarding the size of the dwelling, which they felt would be inappropriate and would have harmful landscape and visual impacts, and that it went beyond what could reasonably be expected to be a modest equestrian workers' dwelling. The application was subsequently reduced in size and resubmitted under reference 05/06 and was approved by the committee subject to various conditions, one of which was that the curtilage should be restricted to the area shown on the site plan as approved on the right-hand side of the screen there. As you saw on site this morning, the curtilage has actually been extended quite considerably in a south-easterly direction here, and you're able to view that on site this morning. In addition, a large double garage has been erected on this part of the site, and work has commenced on a rear extension to the property in this area here. This application seeks retrospective consent for the garages, as well as seeking consent for the single-storey rear extension, as well as a large two-storey side extension as well to the property. So just by way of comparison on the front elevation there, the white dwelling that you can see in the top right-hand corner there is the dwelling as previously approved and as it stands presently on site. You can see the proposed side extension here, and then shown for reference is the planning application which was previously refused by committee. So these are the proposed application elevations, so again you can see the side extension there. You can also see the single-storey rear extension proposed with a flat roof in this area here. So that's what it looks like on plan. This is the garage which game members were able to see this morning, which the application seeks to retain. So in terms of the key planning considerations here, we do have concerns with this application, essentially for the same reasons that led to the refusal of the previous application on this site. The site, the proposal will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area in landscape terms as a result of the increased residential curtilage and the garage building which is proposed or for which consent is sought. It would be visually prominent, it would add to the bulk and massing of development on the site and would have an urbanising effect on the landscape. The existing dwelling, it was felt, would meet the exception of being a rural worker's dwelling, and it was considered that the size and design as approved was appropriate to meet the needs of that worker, and it's considered that what would now be proposed would have a disproportionately harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. So for those reasons, we are recommending that the application is refused this afternoon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We've got three speakers speaking for the application. The first speaker, Theresa Critchlow, you've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Member and officers. Whilst the application dwelling was approved as a rural worker's dwelling, there is nothing enshrined in either local or national planning guidance which would prevent it from being extended in principle, subject to compliance with the Council's own adopted policies for extensions and alterations to dwellings. As such, the proposal should be considered on its own merits. When members approve the dwelling, they overturn the officer recommendation refusal on the basis that that dwelling was modest. This is confirmed by the minutes of that meeting in November 2021. It's therefore somewhat surprising that the committee report before you today makes reference to the room sizes as being generous and the house being sizable. At the time of the previous application, the applicant was single, and the size and scale of the dwelling applied for was commensurate with her needs at that time. Fast forward three years and the dwelling has now been constructed and is occupied. However, her needs have changed significantly. She is now married and has been blessed with a daughter, so there are now three people occupying the dwelling which was originally granted for one. I am sure that any of you that have young children or even grandchildren can attest that despite them being small, the equipment and sheer amount of paraphernalia which is required for them is anything but. The proposed two-storey extension is modest and has been set back off the front elevation so that there is a clear visual break between the extension and the host building. It's got a lower ridge line than the existing, so overall its design ensures that it appears as a secondary and subservient extension, and it does not overwhelm or consume the host building. The proposed extension to the rear relates to a small infill area, which by virtue of its modest size and single-storey flat roof design does not result in any overall harm. Extensions such as that proposed as part of this application have been permitted on many sites across the Staffordshire moorlands and it's considered that its overall design and appearance complies with the council's adopted policies and design guide. The case office suggestion that the proposed extension would undo the size reductions and design improvements previously secured are unfounded. The dwelling constructed on the site is as per the approved plans with narrow gables which were reduced by two metres as well as a smaller single-storey out-bake rigger. Importantly, the reduction in the overall bulk and massing of the dwelling through the reduction of its overall eaves and ridge height, which was a fundamental consideration in the previous application would not be changed by this proposal. Whilst it is regrettable that the garage has already been constructed and requires the enlargement of the curtilage previously approved, it is important to note that this area was not greenfield but comprised of hard standing for overspill parking for the equestrian centre. A separation distance of 50 metres remains between the garage and the equestrian centre to the south east and it's not therefore considered that it has an urbanising or detrimental impact on the openness or visual amenity of the green belt. Finally, and as a point of clarification, the committee report before you today makes reference to the approved dwelling being the second dwelling on the site. This is misleading and factually incorrect. Stable cottage was approved as a conversion for a dwelling back in 1985 subject to an agricultural occupancy condition but that was actually removed in

1. And since that time that certificate of lawfulness was granted that stable cottage is no longer actually associated with Cheadle equestrian centre so this is actually the first dwelling on this site. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Jenny Thompson. You go three minutes. Thank you. Hello committee members and chair. I'd like to take the time to talk about my personal need for the extension. I am living proof that you never know how life can change. Back when I got approval for the house, I was mid 30s and never thought a family was on the cards for me. I was living a successful life on my own and I was happy. All that changed when I met my husband Scott who was the foreman building my house. I'd met my soul mate and everything changed as we got married soon after meeting and we now have a one year old daughter. Throughout being pregnant I managed to increase business and open up new exciting things for local residents whilst bringing in people from further areas. One of which has been I have been extending my knowledge and a couple of times a week I teach disabled children with learning difficulties to ride and care for horses. As well as this at Christmas we held a children's charity pony show where all funds raised went to local charities. Unfortunately this has been all at a struggle and my home life has been incredibly strained since having my daughter. We massively ran out of space in the house which was perfect for me as a single person or even with my husband but not a growing family. The space upstairs is very minimal as we struggle with the dorm style low roof meaning quite a substantial amount of upstairs space is not usable. My daughter's bedroom will only allow a cot or a small single bed and a small child's wardrobe and drawers. As she gets older she will grow out of this and we have no idea what we will do. We can split one bedroom into two but due to the low weaves we would not be able to put wardrobes into the bedrooms and it would make three small single rooms at best or doubles but with no wardrobes and drawers. This moves me onto the garage. Whilst we were unaware we needed permission for a sectional garage we could not live in the house without it. We have no loft space or storage of any kind in the house and half of the space is used for yard maintenance equipment like the topper for the fields, quad bike, mirror etc that we keep close to the house for security reasons. The other half has normal things people with space take for granted like Christmas decorations, my daughter's toys she's had for birthdays and Christmases that we cannot store anywhere. We want to be able to keep pushing the business and providing a brilliant facility for local residents and beyond which I have made good on my promise I would but sadly as you all know family comes first and we have outgrown the house. Without the extra space we will have to sell up as currently it just isn't going to be able to be our forever home where we can both raise a family as well as continue to run a sizeable successful business from our home. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Councillor Mark Haynes. You've got three minutes. Thank you. As a ward councillor for Cheadle South East I've been asked by Mayor Thompson to speak today in support of the application. I appreciate that the officers report recommends refusal however I would like the committee to seriously consider and discuss this application today and determined its own view. I would request that the application is approved albeit with conditions in relation to landscaping and native hedgerow planting. I also appreciate that the applicant agreed from the previous applications to carry out the aforementioned however I'm not clear on the timeline for such and would appreciate clarification today from this from Mr Haywood if possible. Should this application in any subsequent appeal be refused then I would expect Ms Thompson will make good the previous arrangement and agreement in relation to landscaping and hedges. In relation to the officer's concerns I would urge the committee members to consider the following. In relation to harm to the character of the rural area there has been in the question business on this land for over 40 years previous applications and previous businesses and landowners have well established this land as used for an acquiring related business and provision of a home to support someone working or running the business. The development of the site including the stables and homes is not in excess of that than most farms in the area and in fact a larger proportion of the land remains as grass fields for the horses to roam and exercise than has actually been developed. The application for an additional extension to the house and separate garage would barely affect the rural outlook any further than has previously been approved. From the northeast and northwest the extension would hardly be visible as either blocked by the house on the west elevation and partially blocked by the higher level horse menage area
2. easy for me to say. I would also highlight that no nearby resident has registered on rejection to the application today. In terms of size and design of the house obviously the extension will increase the size of the house and that's the intention of it and the officer in the report has an opinion that a house as it stands is big enough. From speaking to Ms Thompson visiting the home I have learned that she met someone and has had a child since the house was built and what was enough space before is now challenging to separate her business admin from family life. Ms Thompson wants to build a future for her family and Cheadle and continue to run a successful business but needs a home that allows her and a partner to do that. Surely the best person to decide if their home is big enough is the people living in it and not the council officers or the planning committee members. Thank you for listening to my thoughts on this application and in the round I believe the committee should approve it with conditions as previously mentioned. Thank you. Thank you Mr Aywood. Thanks chair I mean as has been said a few times this afternoon personal circumstances rarely outweigh more general planning policy considerations and of course you need to determine the application in line with policy. The key issue is whether this meets your policies around design and visual impact and landscape impact of new development. We are concerned for the reasons have already set out that the proposal would be harmful in landscape visual impact terms. That was obviously the view in terms of the committee when you considered a larger dwelling on this site in the first instance and we consider the additional bulk and massing that this extension would add would be harmful and would naturally lead to a similar conclusion in respect to this proposal. Thanks chair. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you chair. I'm a little bit disappointed really. I was on the committee in 2019 when we had the first application. It was refused, it went to appeal, it got refused there. The applicant came back in 2021, we refused it again on the same size and then they listened to what we as a committee said, they came back with what was approved and I think I recommended for approval and I praised the applicant for listening to what the committee had said and unfortunately I've turned up on site today very disappointed that we've got part of an extension already part built, we've got a garage watch built, the extension of the cartilage already happened. You know and it's a bit disappointing when you place somebody up and you think they've listened to you and then you see that things have happened wrongly you know and again the personal circumstances we can't take them into account you know it's like they say they might have to sell and move out and whatever you know and then somebody's got a bigger house. Unfortunately I'm going to have to go with the officer's recommendation so I'm going with refusal. Thank you. Thank you. This application reverts it back to the previously rejected plan to make a mockery of what we previously approved. The garage block has already been built, it doesn't look in keeping with the rest of the building so I would rather that being in a red brick colour to blend in with the house so I'll second the refusal. Any other speakers? Can I just get clarification on permitted development whether was that withdrawn from recollection chair I think it was but I will just double check for you to bear with me a couple of seconds. It was with condition eight. So could that the fact that permitted development was withdrawn could they appeal that? I think they're out of time to appeal against that condition now but all removing permitted development rights does really means that any application you know they're still entitled to make an application to extend but it just simply gives the local authority more control over what happens on site subsequently so hence why we have an application today and you need to judge that on its merits against policy. I'll just query the permitted development rights whether because obviously those mainly in withdrawing them in Greenbelt or where there's a restricted site which we haven't got here. Yes, chair. I'm remembering what everyone else is saying. I'm on the same conclusion that we should refuse the application today but I remember an element of it and I don't know whether others do at all that there was an element of it being a working tie to the equestrian centre which is why we wanted single occupancy and so therefore that's why permitted development was taken away. That's my recollection. So it should be a house for one person who's looking after the equestrian centre. That's what it was built for. That's what we passed. Thank you, chair. Any further speakers? Nobody. So we've got a proposal by Councillor Paul Roberts, seconded by Councillor Keith Ochterhoff to refuse the application. If you're in favour of refusal raise your hands. Any against? Any abstentions? I'm sorry you don't have your approval. Thank you. Comfort break. Thank you, chair. This application is an outline application for residential development of this plot of land which you can see highlighted on the screen here, subject to a site visit this morning. The site is accessed from Park Lane and we walked up here to the site access where we carried out our site visit. The site is within the green belt as you can see shaded on the plan here in front of you. So that's the extent of the application site. It's this field here. As you were able to see on site this morning, this is all of a single field. There is no physical boundary across here at the moment but the application only relates to the front portion. The rear portion shown blue is within the same ownership but outside of the application site. The square of land that you can see here in the corner clearly fenced off on site and that is outside of the application site as well. So as I said it's an outline application but we have been provided with an indicative site layout plan which shows the access coming into the site and three large detached bungalows on the site but as I say you can only attach limited weight to that because this is purely indicative at this stage. So the key issue for consideration here is the principle of development. As I mentioned previously the site is within the green belt where as members will be aware under the National Planning Policy Framework there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development. New residential development is regarded as being inappropriate unless it falls within one of a number of categories and in support of their application the applicants have argued that they consider that this would fall within the category of being limited in filling within a village which is one of the categories of acceptable development in the green belt. We don't consider that this site does fall within that category for a number of reasons. Obviously Cheadle of course is one of the larger towns in the district, it isn't a village. It's clearly within the green belt and we would say clearly lies outside the extent of the built up area which is clearly defined by the built up area boundary here. We also don't consider this can reasonably be considered as infilling. There are as you've seen on site this morning some sporadic properties and small agricultural buildings to the north but usually where we're talking about infilling we are considering sites that are clearly gaps within otherwise built up areas and here as I say the development to the north is very sporadic and it's not something that we would regard as being an obvious infilling site. By the contrary really we would see this as pushing out ribbon development into the countryside beyond the extent of the settlement as it stands at the moment. So we don't feel it falls under that exemption. There is some suggestion within the application documentation that the proposal would enable the applicant to build a property that would better suit his needs in old age but again we haven't been provided with any particular details as to why that's necessary and also of course this is a development for three properties. The applicant refers to the ability then to be close to friends and family for care needs as he grows older but again there's no specific detailed case been made out around that and we don't think that that constitutes very special circumstances in this case to warrant a departure from Greenbelt policy. So we have significant concern with this in principle. We also have concerns regarding the general landscape and visual impact of this development. As you saw on site this morning although you're very close to the boundary of Cheedah this site does have a very open and rural character as you can see in the photographs here and we are quite concerned that developing it would be very intrusive and would really push the suburban form of Cheedah out into what is currently very pleasant and undeveloped countryside and we think that will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. So for all those reasons we are recommending that the application is refused this afternoon. Thank you chair. Thank you. We've got three speakers speaking for the application. Well one will be read out. The first speaker is Mark Bullock. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman and committee. Many thanks for looking into my application for planning on Park Lane Cheedah. I was born in Cheedah and I've lived in the area all my life. The land in question has been in my family for over 90 years. My unsuccessful quest to find a suitable bungalow in the center of Cheedah where there is a shortage of bungalows started 12 months ago when I was diagnosed with the onset of Parkinson's disease and being a diabetic with a degenerative eye condition which I'm being checked on a four monthly interval basis I now know there's a need. These conditions I will eventually lose my independence and I haven't got anybody else and my wife does not drive so I'll lose that ability of getting about. Thus if I could live on Park Lane I would be on reasonably level road and only 300 meters from the Cheedah I Street and all the amenities and support of being in the center of Cheedah so I could carry on with a reasonable sense of independence initially. I am acutely aware however that my conditions will require round-the-clock care moving forward hence the need for two additional properties that will be occupied by my son and my daughter and their families. This will allow a strong family group to stay together resulting in both myself and my wife having the support and assistance we all need in old age without putting additional burden on the care system. There is no better place to construct a bungalow in Cheedah than on Park Lane as it has already lends itself to several bungalows above and below the plot of landing question. In anticipation of the committee looking at my application favourably where I am not in this quest for any financial gain just purely to live the best life I can I'd like to thank you all for listening. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Jim Malkin. You've got three minutes. Thank you Chairman. Good afternoon members of the Planning Committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of our client's application. Whilst acknowledging the contents of your officer's report we fundamentally disagree with the conclusions and would urge members to come to a different conclusion having considered the case fully. The officer's report concludes that the scheme fails on foregrounds and we will cover these in order. Greenbelt. The scheme in our view is a classical infill plot, the development of which is accepted in the Greenbelt. It will not result in urban sprawl, will not encroach into the Greenbelt any further than existing built form and would not in our view harm the wider landscape context. In addition to this as you've just heard there are compelling special circumstances surrounding Mr Bullock's health and his desire to live in Cheedah. In appropriate accessible accommodation and with the support network immediately available there are currently no available accessible bungalows that will meet Mr Bullock's needs within Cheedah or the surrounding area. It's therefore considered that the scheme can be considered to comply with planning policy in relation to the development in the Greenbelt. Character and Appearance. The submission is in outline at this stage and has not been finally designed. The site is viewed against the backdrop of existing built form on three sides and is visually enclosed by existing topography. It is only immediately visible from the private lane which passes the site. Subject to an appropriate design solution at detail stage the development on site will sit acceptably alongside existing properties and if members wish they can ask for the detailed application to come back to this committee so they can be sure they are comfortable with the final design of the scheme. Amenity Neighbours. This reason of refusal fails to take into account this application is in outline only. The applicant will be happy to reduce land levels as necessary to ensure the development does not dominate neighbouring dwellings. Details of land levels and regrading works can be secured via condition. In addition the applicant would be happy for all plots to be single storey only and this again can be secured by a suitably worded condition should members seek to approve the application. Ecology. The submitted ecological report confirms there will be no impact on European protected species. It does however refer to flora on the site and the applicant will be happy to complete the follow-up surveys as advised in the report. They also committed significant levels of biodiversity enhancement in which to plant an orchard and wildflower planting on the remaining land to the south. The requirements of the ecological appraisal and increased planting can be secured via condition as can its subsequent retention. Conclusions. The role of planning is to facilitate appropriate development. In this instance it is considered that the policy context will allow members to support this proposal should they see fit. The imposition of appropriate conditions, including those outlined earlier in this speech, will give members the confidence and assurance that any development on the site will be completed at the highest possible standard whilst not impacting on the immunity of neighbours or ecology on the site. Thank you for your time and we hope that you are able to overturn your officer's recommendation and grant planning provision for this scheme. Thank you. I've got a final statement from Councillor Martin De Ville, Justin Price-Jones. If you can read that out, thank you. Yes, this is the statement of the ward Councillor, Councillor Martin De Ville. He states, "Dear committee members, the applicant, Mr Bullock, has given me permission to refer to his special personal circumstances and I therefore very much like to bring your attention to these very important special circumstances and hence his future lifestyle. Mr Bullock has a very real need to live in appropriate and accessible accommodation with necessary support immediately available in Cheadle. This of course is an outline application. The final detailed application will need to be acceptable to Councillors, to planning officers and more importantly be acceptable to neighbouring residents. The applicant would in no way wish this application to be of detriment to the local area or to local residents. This application is of major importance to Mr Bullock's future lifestyle and quality of life. I sincerely hope that these circumstances are considered when making the decision at the planning applications meeting. Yours sincerely, Mark De Ville. Thank you. Mr Aywood. Thank you, Chair. Well, again, as we've said a number of times this afternoon, personal circumstances rarely will outweigh more general planning policies, I think particularly Greenbelt policy which is probably the strictest and most restrictive planning policy that we have. This isn't just open countryside, this is Greenbelt as well. We've heard a bit this afternoon from the applicant and his agent about his personal circumstances, however we've not seen a detailed submission on that with associated supporting medical information or site search details. But as I say, in any event, personal circumstances are rarely going to outweigh the provisions of planning policy and especially Greenbelt. As well as the principle which I spoke about in the original presentation, there are other ancillary reasons for refusal which were touched on by the applicant, including the concerns about the visual impact of the proposal which members were able to view today. The site is visible from public rights of way and we do feel that it would be very intrusive into the rural landscape in this particular area outside Cheadle. And as you've also seen, there are concerns about biodiversity as well as concerns about the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. So as well as the principle of development here, we do have other concerns regarding the other aspects of the scheme as well. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Councillor Keith Lundy. Thank you, chair. Just wanted a couple of clarifications, if that was okay. On the diagram here, it shows the Greenbelt beforehand. Is the dark green just not in Greenbelt? Is that what that indicates, firstly? Thanks, chair. It's all in Greenbelt. The hatched lines indicate Greenbelt. The darker green, I think, is related to the cemetery and the open space, I believe. Thank you. It goes beyond that, but anyway, okay. I'll take it on board that it's not just the light green, it's the dark green area as well. Okay, just a bit confused on that one. In terms of infill for me, I just wanted to ask, looking at that diagram at the moment, obviously with the site next to it not going forward, is that considered, the whole of that area is not as infilled, because obviously there's a separate site there that was applied for before. I think you've already answered my question about personal circumstances, which is what I was going to do, but I just have a question. Has there been a case previously, to your knowledge, where personal circumstances has outweighed Greenbelt? And then finally, in terms of ecology, I don't understand why you'd have to, in terms of a balance, obviously leaving it as Greenbelt would probably be better than not leaving it as Greenbelt and building on it. Therefore, ecologically, it would be better to leave it as Greenbelt, in terms of an ecological point of view. So just those three things, if I can just ask Ben on that, thank you. Thank you, Chair. So in terms of previous site history, there's no previous site history relating to this particular site, although there have been previous refusals on the adjoining plot of land for development, again on the basis that it was contrary to Greenbelt policy and didn't meet any of the exceptions in terms of infilling, et cetera. With regard to ecology, we are concerned about loss of ecology and biodiversity on the site, so that is one of the other reasons. In terms of personal circumstances, each case is obviously judged on its own merits. We have had cases, certainly in open countryside, where a case has been made in very exceptional circumstances, under personal circumstances, but I have to say in those particular cases, we've had very exhaustive medical reports, et cetera, we've had very comprehensive site searches being carried out, and it's been demonstrated that there is no suitable accommodation for a particular individual's needs, not just in terms of availability but in terms of the physical design of the property as well, catering for that particular individual. I think the other point that perhaps differentiates this as well as being in Greenbelt, of course we are very close to Cheadle, so there is a wide range of accommodation available within Cheadle. I think where we have looked favourably on similar cases elsewhere, it's been where we've been out in the rural areas and for a person to stay in their own particular community, it's been far more difficult to find alternative options for accommodation. So, as I say, I think there are distinctions between where those sorts of cases have cropped up before and this one, and of course in this particular case as well we are looking at three properties rather than just one for the particular individual with particular circumstances. Thank you, Joe. In that case, on those answers, I think I will propose a refusal along the grounds that we've just been discussing. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, Chair. I'll second that. Thank you. Would you like to speak on it? I'm OK just at the moment. Thank you. Councillor Jonathan Campster. Mark, I'm very sorry to hear about the actual challenges which you're facing at the moment. But as our officer has said, for all the reasons -- I mean, it is in the green belt, there is an issue relating to biodiversity as well, and also in terms of the visual impact. So for a variety of reasons, we are a bit caught with the actual policy, so I will also be going with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ian Plan. Yes, thanks, Chair. I think along with everybody else we have all sympathy for the applicant. And you can see what predicament we're in being in the green belt as well. It's always been publicised by Cheetle Town Council as we've always got a shortage of bungalows in Cheetle. We keep getting told we've got to have more bungalows for people to downsize. So there's these facilities then for the younger element and larger families to move into and the other houses. But housing authorities don't seem to click on that. And this is why these applications come in. Like I say, I've got every sympathy for him, but our hands are tied on this one. I'd love to say yes, but like I say, our hands are very, very tied on this. Yes, I mean, I'm on the balance with this one, because I agree with the previous speaker that we do need more bungalows. And I know it's personal circumstances, but, you know, if that person did leave this dwelling, but it was adapted for a disabled person, then that would be for another disabled person. But, you know, we need policies where they're all inclusive, you know. It is an ageing population, and I think we need more bungalows adapted for the older generation, and that releases other properties for the younger generation. So I'm a bit on the balance here. I mean, where is the development boundary? Does it touch on the development boundary? Thanks, Chair. The development boundary is round here. So the white areas that you see here are within the Cheadle boundary. Yeah, so it's not actually, it's right on the boundary. It's not like, you know, countryside, and to me it does look, to me it looks like infilling. But, you know, and I do believe we need more properties adapted for disabled people with, you know, purpose built. That's why we've got a massive fund to adapt other dwellings to disabled, for disabled people, because we haven't got enough dwellings to cater for the older generation. So, you know, I'm really on the fence with this one, Councillor Lindstrom will list. Yeah, I think for me it touches on what Councillor Roberts said, that we've had an afternoon of trying to let your head rule your heart, not the other way round. And that's very, very difficult I think for all of us on planning. And I think the one thing that makes a difference to me is this is not one small bungalow, it's three properties. And that makes a significant difference for me personally. But I absolutely agree with the idea that we need, you know, we need properties like this, and clearly we do. But I'm willing to listen to anybody else as well. Thank you, Chair. Any further speakers? Councillor Paul Roberts. Yes, Chair. I'm thinking on the lines of yourself really, in a way, that the bad thing is we can't put a condition on a bungalow that it's for a disabled person, for exactly the same. And it's exactly the same what I've said. You know, it tucks us to arch strings, but we're tied by planning law all the time. And if we start going down, I mean, as I've said before, I've been on this planning committee for 21 years now, and I know of only two applications that have been given for special circumstances, and one of them was at appeal. And, you know, it was different circumstances. And I feel sorry for the gentleman, you know, that things happen, but it's the same ruling as what we're saying. It's not one property, it's three properties, and that makes the difference. If it had been one property for an infill, I might have been looking at it a lot different, but, you know, when it's three, it's a completely different situation, you know, because it then becomes three properties for somebody else, you know, because something could happen, then then three properties could go out of the family situation, you know, so that's what we have to look at. And we're tied, tied basically by planning law and circumstances, you know, and it's like, say, just tug at yard strings, but unfortunately, you know, it's like I've said before, we have to go by the planning law, you know, otherwise we can land ourselves in deep water. Thank you. Any further speakers? So I've got a recommendation by Councillor Keith Flunder, seconded by Councillor Paul Roberts, to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation. If you're in favour of refusal, raise your hands. Anyone against? Any abstentions? I'm sorry you don't have your approval. Moving on to agenda item 10, SMD2023/0539, Cloughhouse, Barbanco, McMoor. Have we got any speakers? Can you come forward? Mr Heywood. Thank you, Chair. This is an application for an extension at Cloughhouse, Barbanco, McMoor, subject to the site visit this morning. So this is Cloughhouse here. We parked at the bottom of the drive here and walked up to the property. As you can see, it's just outside the main core of the village. It's enclosed by housing to this side. And there are some glimpsed views of the property from a public footpath which runs along the green dotted line there. So there are some views back from that side there. So this is the existing property. It's a handsome Victorian villa, which is within the Okemoor Conservation Area and is referred to in the Okemoor Conservation Area Appraisal. Some quite fine detailing on this property, particularly in terms of the brick coursing, the details to the windows, fascia boards and so on and so forth. It has been subject to a pitched roof single storey extension to the rear in the past, which you can see there. And again, we looked at that on site this morning. The proposal is to essentially remove the pitched roof from the existing single storey rear extension and replace it with a flat roof along with some fenestration changes. And in addition to construct a two storey pitched roof rear extension alongside it here with this small dormer French window feature in the side, looking out across the flat roof to the side here. So the key issue for us here really is design and the impact on the Okemoor Conservation Area. Given the relatively isolated position of the property, there are no neighbour immunity concerns raised and we are within the settlement boundary so it's acceptable in principle. But as I say, the key issue really is the impact on the conservation area and the impact on the character and appearance of the property. And as you'll see in your report, we do have some concerns regarding the design of this extension, in particular the introduction of the flat roof, which obviously isn't characteristic of properties of this era, as well as specifically the dormer French window feature in the side elevation of the first floor here, which again isn't characteristic of the style of property in question. So we consider that although there's no objection in principle to an extension, the way it's proposed to be executed would be detrimental to the property itself as well as the conservation area and it would result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area under which circumstances that harm should be according to the MPPF balanced out by public benefits, which we don't find. In this case, of course, the benefit of the scheme is private to the applicant as the occupier of the property. So for those reasons, we are recommending this application for refusal. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We've got two speakers speaking for the application. The first speaker is Laurel Gallagher. You've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak in support of this plan today. I was delighted to move into Clough House with my family, my husband, my three children, as our forever home in Okemore a year ago. We've been members of the community in Okemore for over eight years now, though. Our children have gone to school there since 2015. My husband and son play for the Okemore Cricket Club. We have a strong network of friends in the village and are supporting the Okemore Benefit Society in the purchase of a local pub. We were lucky enough to be able to purchase Clough House as our forever family home and have already been recognised as bringing benefit to the heritage asset by the parish council and neighbours who have taken the time to write letters of support for this application. Our neighbours are relieved to see that the property is being taken care of, including the grounds which we have already made significant improvements to. The parish council actively want to encourage families to move into the village to ensure the survival of community assets, including the local school, pub and cricket club. Clough House is a beautiful Victorian villa, but it is in need of restoration to protect it from decay and provide a heritage asset for generations to come, which we propose to do as part of these plans. We submitted a planning application to adapt the functionality of Clough House for 21st century family life and restore the heritage assets, in particular the windows at the front. We worked closely with planning officer Ernie Swithumbank to adapt our original plans in response to his advice and his guidance. We explored a number of options and agreed with the planning officer to put forward this plan. This plan makes best use of the natural light and the beautiful vistas and it makes no impact on the heritage asset of the building or the conservation area of Oakmore. I am confused and frustrated to be here today. When we were advised that this plan would be rejected and that we should return to a design feature, a cat slide roof, which was in our original plan, which was rejected, we started to lose faith in this planning process. I don't understand what more we could have done to meet the expectations of the planning department. If this plan is rejected now, I am afraid it will discourage families who want to move into the village and restore heritage assets like Clough House by setting a negative precedent. I am here today to ask that the planning committee consider in their decision our collaborative approach with the planning department, our commitment to the life of the village, our commitment to conserving the heritage asset and the surrounding grounds. I hope that this plan is passed so that we can make a start on much needed works to preserve, maintain and improve a beautiful heritage asset for future generations to come. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Ross Ankuszko, three minutes. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, committee. The applicants moved into Clough House in the summer of 2023, recognising the need to renovate the Victorian villa in order to prevent further decay of the building. They set their mind on how best to transform the house into a functioning home without impacting the heritage asset of the building or the wider conservation area. Throughout the planning application process, the applicants have worked closely with the planning officer to achieve a design that meets this brief. They have considered all comments and taken action on all suggestions and proposals presented to them by the officer and the consultation responses, and through this process have arrived at the scheme being considered today. You will note from the officer's report that the general scale and massing of the two-storey extension to the rear is agreeable following the successful negotiations. The outstanding issues are focused around the replacement roof to the existing rear outrigger and a small dormer window to the east elevation. In regards to the Conservation Officer report, I would request the committee dismiss this consultation due to the significant errors in the report and the lack of re-consultation response on the revised schemes, despite the applicant's continued request for a review. To address the outstanding points of contention, CSS 9 states development must reflect and enhance the village's and building's special character. The current condition of the property has a negative impact on the heritage asset and conservation area, and as enabling works, the proposed development of the site as a whole will offer a positive contribution, therefore balancing public benefits against any perceived harm. Notwithstanding, the proposals are located entirely to the rear of the building, with no impact on the areas of architectural interest or to the wider community being hidden from the public highway. In respect to the flat roof element, several massing proposals were presented to the officer for review and comment following the initial rejection of the cat slide roof. It was unanimously agreed that the concealed flat roof option presented several benefits over the alternative options, notably being significantly subservient to the original building. Similar flat roof forms have been successfully developed on similar properties throughout the staff moorlands, inside and outside of the conservation areas. The dormer window design complies with the Council's adopted design guide, presents no issues of amenity loss to the applicant's or neighbouring properties, is not an unusual feature to find present in late Victorian domestic buildings, and has no impact on the immediate or wider heritage asset of the building or the conservation area, again being tucked away within the elbow of the rear building. The areas of contention are minor and insignificant comparative to the positive works the applicant intends to carry out on the property. As such, I would argue the proposals comply with SS1, SS9, DC1 and 2 and the MPPF, and therefore permission should be granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Aywood. Thank you, Chair. Not a lot to say, really, other than it's clearly a judgement for members in terms of whether this is an appropriate form of extension or not. We do have, as I say, design concerns. We would normally discourage flat roofs, certainly on heritage buildings and certainly within conservation areas. The dormer feature we don't consider is typical of a property of this sort of age and style. As I've said, there's no objection in principle to an extension. We have had some discussions with the applicant about different forms which may work or may not work. As I say, that dialogue has taken place. Unfortunately, we've not got to a point of agreement on that, which is why that's in front of you today, but we would remain open to further dialogue around that. But as I say, we do feel that this is harmful to the character and appearance of the property and the conservation area. Although it's not very visible, there are some glimpsed views, as we said earlier, from the footpath, but of course your local plan policy doesn't differentiate between visible sites and sites which aren't visible. It expects a high standard of design for all schemes, regardless of where they are. And certainly in terms of national and local policy around conservation areas, again, there's no distinction drawn between sites which are visible or sites which are not visible. We would expect development not to harm the conservation area, or if it did, then that harm must be outweighed by public benefits. And as you've heard here, although this will obviously assist the family with their living requirements, again, we're down to personal circumstances, which are private rather than public benefits. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, chair. Just a little bit confused on certain aspects of it. There's been dialogue. They've come with a design that the officer doesn't like, and then this has come in. I'm not much for the design with the flat roof. I was totally honest about it in the conservation area. I would have rather have seen the original roof that you've got now kept in place. And what I'm going to suggest is that we defer the application so that you can have more conversation between yourselves, because I think something can be reached. I've got no problems with the windows or having an extension, but it's just the design isn't right, and the flat roof mudders me. So rather than refuse it, I would ask for deferral so that we can have more conversations with yourselves and the officers, and I think you might get something that you can reach. So I'm recommending deferral. And Councillor Keith. I'll second that, because I do think they're quite close to actually getting into an agreement, and therefore it would be beneficial all round to keep that villa and have a family house at the same time. I think it's an achievable target, so I'll second deferral. Any further speakers? So we've got a recommendation to defer the application for more dialogue with the officer and the agent, and if you're proposed by Councillor Paul Roberts, seconded by Councillor Keith Lunder, if you're in favour of deferral, raise your hands. That is unanimous, so we've got a deferral on that one. Thank you. The final agenda item is 11, Greenacres form, SMD2024/0117, Aixmore Lane, Biddulph. Can the speakers come forward? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. This application relates to a stable building, Aixmore Lane and Biddulph. This is the application site, subject to a visit this morning, although unfortunately we couldn't get onto the site. But we did stand at the access here and have a look at the access point into the site. We observed the trees, which are around here, and the stable building is in this location, screened by the trees that are shown by that shaded area there. The proposal is to replace the stable with a single dwelling, so that's the existing stable. Had we been able to walk up the driveway, that's what it looks like. The proposed dwelling would sit on a very similar footprint, as you see there, with parking. It's also proposed to provide a small solar array to provide power for the dwelling. That's the dwelling as proposed, so as you can see, utilising a similar form, linear form to the stables, finished in a timber material again to replicate the stable building that it would be replacing. The site is within the greenbelt, however, an exception to greenbelt policy is the redevelopment of previously developed land, which the stable is considered to be, and therefore there's no objection in principle. However, there is a proviso within that policy that says that the development mustn't have a greater impact on openness than the existing development. And again, given that the form and height and footprint of the proposed dwelling are very similar to the stable it replaces, we are satisfied that it complies in that regard. The main issue for us here is the impact on the living conditions and amenity of future occupiers of the dwelling as a result of close proximity to the adjoining site, which is operated as a skip-hire business and also, as you saw on site this morning, there are some elements of agricultural use there as well. That has prompted objections from the Council's Environmental Health Officer, even though a noise assessment has been submitted, the Environmental Health Officer isn't satisfied that mitigation can be achieved to a satisfactory degree to protect the amenity of future occupants of that property. Again, your policies require a good standard of living conditions for all new dwellings that we approve, and we can't guarantee that in this instance, and therefore the Environmental Health Officer is recommending refusal of the application. The applicant argues that they stand to inherit the skip-yard site in due course and therefore that land will come under their control and therefore they will be able to control the future use of that site and potentially close the skip business down. However, of course, we have to bear in mind that planning permission travels with the land rather than the occupant, and of course there will be nothing to stop the new dwelling or the site with planning permission being sold off to somebody else, or indeed the skip-yard site also being sold off to somebody else separately from the dwelling, in which case we then have an unsatisfactory relationship between the new dwelling and the neighbouring site. So with that in mind, we have no option really but again to recommend this for refusal this afternoon. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. We've got one speaker and then the same speaker is reading our statement for the second speaker. Andrew Dukesell, you've got three minutes and then I'll give you three minutes for the statement. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Planning Committee. This is a statement from the owner, the applicant. His ambition is to fulfil – the application is to fulfil his ambition to be able to reside back in the countryside where he grew up in the 1980s within the paddocks of the land that he owns since 2013, which he used for walking his dogs, his own exercise and health, vegetable plot, and he's got a strong interest in nature. He's been looking for many years to live in his rural location, but it is a struggle to find anything suitable within a budget. We have horses grazing the well-kept land, which is fenced professionally, also neighbour sheep grazing on the land. If consent was granted, he would propose that the dwelling would comply with all building regulations and fit sympathetically within the location. Although he does not work in farming and agriculture at the moment, he has friends and family that do so, and he wants to keep his ties within the farming community and countryside and use his skills with animals and nature. Therefore, it's essential for him to live on the site as he's travelling backwards and forwards two, three times a day for the security and upkeep of the land. He would propose a design of the dwelling that would be aerated for energy efficiency and attractive to prove the surroundings and landscaping is his priority to meet any requirements of the planning office and building regulations. The adjacent yard use has been mentioned in the past, however unfortunately his brother passed away this April and the use of the site has now ceased and it's clear as skips. We did send some photos of the empty yard. All the verticals have been gone and it's been tided thoroughly. The executors inform him that Robert's wishes are for him, the applicant, to inherit the yard from the estate. Therefore, the yard will only have permitted use for the future, his attached photos. I gather that other applications have been granted for barn and stable conversions throughout the country. There is pressure on housing generally. His application would make it possible for farmers' sons such as himself to reside in the country and use the skills that he has to treat the countryside well and to enjoy the location. Thank you for listening to my applicant's submission for the meeting today. That's from Ernest Shaw. Thank you. So now you've got three minutes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So as you've just heard, during this application the adjacent site has ceased operations. It's all been cleared of all the relevant machinery and equipment. So it seems like a mute point to be petitioning in support of the design of the dwelling that would mitigate against noise arising from the skip yard as it will no longer be trading. However, the proposed property is designed as a passive house. It will be built to a very high standard with high levels of insulation and air tightness. To achieve this target, high efficiency, triple glazed windows will be installed, all of which will have the added benefit of achieving improved insulation against unwanted external noise. For the passive house standard, ventilation is controlled using whole house mechanical ventilation systems so that rapid changes of external temperature can be controlled. Therefore, the occupants of the property can remain comfortable inside the property throughout the year without the need to open a window. I would suggest that noise can be subjective and if an occupant chooses to open a window, they do so knowing that they may not be as well protected from external noise. The primary concern of the environmental health seems to be them receiving a complaint from a future occupant. Even if the adjacent site continued to operate as it previously has, anyone purchasing the dwelling would have common sense not to do so if they were sensitive to noise from a neighbouring skip yard. That said, there is an existing earth bund, dense shrubbery, and a proposed acoustic fence to separate the property from the former skip yard to reduce any noise that would have been generated there. Even though the previous business could have operated 24/7, skip companies across the country generally operate between 8 and 10pm, so we're unsure why there's a concern for an out of hours disturbance. It isn't like a call for an emergency skip or short notice is a common requirement. We've supplied noise assessment with our original application last year, which concluded the noise levels could be adequately mitigated for people both inside the property and enjoying the outside garden space. Environmental health's objections were publicised, saying that there was unknown factors and requested additional calculations. Unfortunately, the application was refused on the same day that we were made aware of that application, so we were unable to address those concerns. As such, the applicant had to reapply and we've included the additional calculations as requested. These have been somewhat disregarded given that it provides further support that noise would have been above acceptable levels. Sadly, it seems to be simply that they don't want to dwell in on this site and have not assessed the situation in a pragmatic manner, especially as the site has now seized operating under the control of the applicant going forward. Thank you. Mr Awood. Thank you, Chair. I mean, the key issue here seems to be around the point that's made that the adjoining site has been cleared of skips and that the applicant stands to inherit it and therefore inherit control over it in due course. I think we do need to bear in mind that if there is an established use there as a skip business, then that would be a lawful use and could be recommenced even if the site has been cleared, so we need to be mindful of that. And as I've said, sites can be separated. There would be nothing to prevent this site from being sold off separately to the skip yard site, and I appreciate the point that's being made that a prospective purchaser wouldn't buy it if they were sensitive to living next to a skip yard, but of course, if that's closed down, somebody could purchase the property and then the skip business could reopen again. So there is that risk, I think, whilst there is the prospect of both uses co-existing and that's really where the issue arises here. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Paul Roberts. Thank you, Chair. I don't make decisions on ESA that the skip yard is closed down, we've got no evidence that it's closed down or it's in the ownership or anything. We have to look what's in front of us, and at the moment Environmental Health have said that they've got concerns over noise and everything else. The Inspector has. It's been three times, I think, or four times now, and it's been refused for exactly the same reasons that the noise. It's alright saying it'll come into their ownership, but ourselves as Councillors we don't know that until I see a document saying that it's in the same ownership. So I'm going with the Officer's recommendation for refusal. Thank you. Councillor Mark Johnson. I'll second that and won't waste your time apart from saying for exactly the reasons that Councillor Roberts has said, I second it. Any further speakers? So we'll move into the vote then. We've got a recommendation to refuse the application proposed by Councillor Paul Roberts, seconded by Councillor Mark Johnson. If you're in favour of refusal, raise your hands. That is unanimous, sorry you don't have your approval. Right, we'll move into Confidential.