6
The Committee received report ES/2204 which related to Planning Application DC/24/3218/FUL. Full planning permission was sought for the construction of a new dwelling, including the retention of works already carried out to create footings and walls, at Mill Green Farm, Mill Green, Parham.
The application was presented to Planning Committee South for determination at the request of the Referral Panel. The Referral Panel process was triggered due to the officer recommendation of refusal being contrary to the Parish Council's support of the application. The application was presented to the Referral Panel on 26 November 2024 where the Panel determined that the application warranted further discussion and debate at Committee.
The Planning Officer ran through a presentation of the application, explaining that the property originally had permission for conversion of the barn into two holiday lets. During the conversion the applicant felt the building had become unsafe and so the whole building was removed with some materials being retained on site.
The new application before the committee was for a three-bedroom house in the same location as the previous barn. The applicant believed that the new dwelling met the Council’s Cluster policy SCLP 5.4. The Planning Officer ran through the Cluster policy assessment and explained that they did not believe the site sat within a cluster as it was not within a close group of five dwellings and there was no development on two sides. They demonstrated this with an illustration similar to this application and referenced an appeal for Mill Road, Newbourne, that was dismissed by the Planning Inspector in June 2023. There were no other planning policies that this application complied with.
The Planning Officer ran through a series of before and after photos of the site comparing those taken in June 2021 with ones taken this year. He showed block plans, floor plans and elevations comparing the old barn, the previously approved scheme and the current scheme. The Planning Officer explained that the proposed dwelling was very similar in appearance to the previous application for the holiday lets and there were just some slight fenestration changes on the ground floor.
The recommendation to refuse the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chair invited questions from Members, clarifying that the questions should first be about the proposal and locality and then about third party representations.
Councillor McCallum asked for clarity on the situation for the applicant if the application was refused and would the building have to be removed.
The Planning Officer explained that if it was refused the applicant would have the right to appeal. If the applicant chose to appeal and it was dismissed then the Council would pursue enforcement to remove the works already undertaken.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if the applicant contacted Building Control at the point where the barn was considered unsafe or did the applicant just carry on and demolish the building. He asked for clarity if Building Control had been contacted at all.
The Planning Officer said they only became aware when the Enforcement Team was notified that the barn had been removed by a member of the public. There was no recourse with the Planning department prior to the removal of the barn.
Councillor Daly asked what was being done now in terms of new footings that don’t have permission and asked for clarity that the removal of a heritage building was done without any recourse to Planning. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was no recourse.
Councillor Smithson asked about the interpretation of a dwelling as in one application it was allowed but in this new application it wasn’t.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the previous application was not for a dwelling in the same sense. That was a conversion of a historic barn and there are policies that allow the conversion of barns into holiday lets in the countryside. However, when it comes to new dwellings in rural areas these developments are seen as unsustainable for permanent dwelling unless they meet the Cluster policy. This application was not considered to meet the Cluster policy.
Councillor Hedgley asked if there had to be five or more dwellings or more than five ie six that constituted a close group. The Planning Officer explained that it must be at least five or more and this site does not sit within a close group of dwellings.
The Chair asked if there were any further questions on the proposal and if there were any about the third-party representations.
Councillor Smithson asked if there were any ecological surveys, any objections and if neighbours were consulted. The Planning Officer confirmed that all consultations were triggered in line with normal procedures and statutory, non statutory and neighbouring consultees were notified. He confirmed that they had received no objections.
Councillor McCallum noted that Parham Parish Council supported the application but asked if there was more information from them.
The Planning Officer thought the Parish Council was registered to speak and confirmed that the Parish Council response was just one of support. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained this sort of response would be interpreted as not having material considerations accompanying it under the new Constitution as detailed earlier in the meeting. The Planning Officer confirmed that the Ward Councillor would be speaking and not the Parish Council.
Councillor McCallum asked for clarity that no further information from the Parish Council was available and that they weren’t here to speak. The Planning Officer confirmed this.
The Chair invited the applicant, Mr John Patrick, to speak.
Mr Patrick stated that he bought the farm in 1997 with the intention of establishing their forever home and the barn was an integral part. There was a fire in 2001 which destroyed the house but they were able to save the barn and the house was rebuilt. During a storm in 2018 the western gable end of the barn was blown out meaning significant work was required so they sought planning permission. During the renovation there was a collapse of the timber frame. They referred to the planning conditions which they interpreted as allowing them to dismantle and safely store the framework for reinstating.
The applicant explained that he felt the reasons for refusal were subjective. He argued it was a cluster and there were seven dwellings centred around the Old Mill with no open field between dwellings. He continued that they met two of the requirements of Criteria B of the Cluster policy. The identifiable gap was where the barn used to be and there was development on at least two sides and they actually had it on three if you took into account the stables, house and garden.
He asked the Members to support their view and to allow them to reinstate the barn which was fully supported by Parham Parish Council, local residents and Ward Members. The failure to reinstate would leave a gaping hole and a lost opportunity for sympathetic rural development.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant from Members.
Councillor Smithson asked if there was any written evidence to support that the barn was unsafe and had to be removed.
Mr Patrick explained there were challenges between balancing planning permission, building regulations and structural engineers. The structural engineers advised that new 2metre deep footings had to be dug under the existing frame. The collapse then happened after they had dug them by hand. The Appeal Inspector upheld the wording of the conditions that he could remove timbers and store them to be reinstated. All the pantiles, bricks and timbers have been retained for reinstalling. He admitted that he should have engaged with the planners at the point it collapsed.
Councillor Ninnmey was concerned that they started development after the collapse and asked if Building Control had been in contact.
Mr Patrick said there had been no contact with anyone until Enforcement were involved.
Councillor Ninnmey questioned why they didn’t call Building Control when it collapsed.
Mr Patrick explained that having read the conditions and consulted with the builder and architect they felt they could continue. They took away the health and safety risk and he just wanted to rebuild the barn they enjoyed having next to their house.
Councillor Folley asked when the applicant decided to change from two holiday lets to a three-bedroom property.
Mr Patrick explained that two holiday lets was part of the original planning application and he didn’t want to change, but the Cluster policy wasn’t appropriate for holiday lets. He stated that he didn’t mind if it was a sole dwelling or a holiday let, he just wanted to keep the barn alive.
Councillor Folley asked if the footings have used new materials when the old materials had been kept.
Mr Patrick explained that all timbers, red brick and pantiles had been retained and the drawings that have been signed off show how these materials would be reinstated. The original elements were not fit for structural load so the outward facing elements would be faced with original elements to retain the original look.
Councillor Daly asked for clarity that the building being put back would mean that in appearance the old barn would be reinstated, so it could be seen as a conversion.
The applicant confirmed that it would. Apart from a few minor changes to windows and doors it would fundamentally look like the same building. He appreciated in hindsight he could have done things differently. He reiterated that he didn’t care if it was a holiday let or property to be sold, he just wanted to rebuild the barn.
The Chair invited the Ward Member Councillor Langdon-Morris to speak.
Councillor Langdon-Morris was aware that the idea of a three-bedroom house was to ensure it conformed to the Cluster policy. He had visited the site and felt that the proposal was reasonable. He fully supported the application and hoped that the barn could be reinstated.
Councillor McCallum asked if Councillor Langdon-Morris would prefer holiday lets or a permanent dwelling?
Councillor Langdon-Morris would prefer holiday lets but that was a personal opinion.
There were no further questions for the Ward Member so the Chair invited questions to the Officers.
Councillor McCallum asked if the application for the three-bedroom house was refused could the two holiday lets be reinstated.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained there was no planning permission still in place following the demolition of the barn and that had already been to appeal. He explained there was no proposal for holiday lets and the matter to be debated was if this application met the Cluster policy.
Councillor McCallum asked if it was at the point the barn wall came down that the holiday lets planning permission ended, or was it because of the period of time that had passed and was East Suffolk at fault for it taking so long.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained this was not the first time a barn conversion had lost planning permission during conversion but in those cases the applicants contacted the Planning department. He acknowledged that the applicant was remorseful and had regrets but once the barn had been demolished the planning permission ceased.
The Planning Officer pointed out that the photos from the Enforcement Officer visit in 2022 were the same as those in the report today.
Councillor Ninnmey expressed concern that the applicant felt they had to dig under the footings and was surprised there was no supporting structure on the barn whilst they did this.
The Planning Officer explained that an extensive structural report was undertaken which stated the barn was convertible with the key structural components staying in-situ, and that formed the basis of the approval into holiday lets.
Councillor Daly noted that the Planning Officer’s report stated that the heritage asset had been lost but the applicant said it had been put in storage and it will return. He asked if it could still be a conversion of a heritage asset.
The Planning Officer explained he had discussed this with the Principal Design and Conservation Officer. His view was that because it had been dismantled there would be no heritage benefit and although materials had been retained on site they could have come from anywhere. It was felt there would be no heritage benefit to be gained, as there was previously when the building was approved for conversion.
Councillor Daly asked for clarity that the works that have been carried out do not comply with the consent.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the works went above and beyond the original planning permission and this was why the appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector.
Councillor Smithson stated she was struggling with the narrow, precise definition of heritage. She appreciated that the original barn was not there but when it was finished it would look like the original. In terms of appearance to most people it would look like an attractive historic building and there seemed a very narrow view when talking about dwellings. Personally, she would prefer a home where people lived in it permanently.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that a Non-Designated Heritage Asset was an existing structure. To be recognised as such it must be physically there. What would be rebuilt would be a new building that has some value to the landscape but it wouldn’t be a Non-Designated Heritage Asset.
Councillor Hedgley thought there was a lot of confusion but it seemed quite straightforward to renovate the barn using all the parts that had been saved.
The Planning Officer explained that because the barn was removed there was no extant consent. There was no building left to convert so this was a new build application. Although it was similar, it was a new dwelling and there was no planning permission on this site for holiday lets or a dwelling.
Councillor McCallum felt the confusion came from the report as it referred to what was in the past when in fact what they were being asked to decide was a new build that doesn’t meet the definition of the Cluster policy.
The Chair invited Members to debate.
Councillor McCallum felt it would be difficult to go with the Officer’s recommendation. Having listened to the applicant and Ward Member she had sympathy with them and it was a fine line if this application conformed with the Cluster Policy. She stated that she would be voting against the Officer’s recommendation unless anyone managed to change her mind.
Councillor Smithson was of the same mind and felt they were arguing about technicalities. In terms of the Cluster policy there was a building there so can’t see it was that much of an issue. She couldn’t see the value of turning it down and it would be more of a loss not to let it go ahead.
Councillor Daly acknowledged it was a tricky one. The heritage side has gone now and as a Committee and Council we need to be careful that we don’t allow buildings like this to be removed without due process being followed. He stated he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Ninnmey was very torn and had great sympathy for the applicant who he felt had perhaps been poorly advised. He was very worried that there were developers and builders who don’t come to the Council for clarification and just go ahead and demolish a historic building. Therefore, he would be going with the Officer’s recommendation, but felt this scheme was a missed opportunity.
The Chair reminded Members that if they went against the Officer’s recommendation, they had to have good reasons for doing so and if they refused the applicant could appeal.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management advised the Committee to go forward with the vote.
Councillor Daly proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey. There were three in favour and four against so there was a requirement for an alternative proposal.
Councillor McCallum felt that the proposal met the criteria of a Cluster. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management asked if there was something specific in their interpretation of the Cluster policy.
Councillor McCallum felt there were merits of the application and that it did meet the Cluster policy.
Councillor Folley stated that if the building hadn’t fallen down there would be five buildings there and the only reason it wasn’t a cluster was because it fell down. She acknowledged it was a fine line and didn’t often go against Officer recommendations but felt this was one was an exception.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management asked if Members felt that this was a cluster because it aligned with the applicant’s interpretation; because of the group to the South and it had development on at least two sides.
Councillor McCallum agreed that she believed it conformed to the policy.
Councillor Smithson felt there needed to be a strengthening around how barns were converted but agreed it conformed with the Cluster policy.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed he was happy that Members believed it met the Cluster policy and that they had understood there were policy considerations. He stressed it was important to be consistent in the application and interpretation of the Cluster policy, which was often a challenge.
Councillor Daly pointed out that the precedent point was very important and that they needed to stick to policies. He explained that Officers demonstrated why it didn’t meet the Cluster policy and we needed to stick to the letter of the policy. He asked Members to bear in mind the implications if it was approved.
Councillor McCallum had sympathy with the applicant and Officers. She understood Councillor Daly’s point but saw this building as part of a cluster.
Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarity on the boundaries and distance in relation to clusters or else you could carry on forever to create a cluster. The report said it wasn’t a cluster but felt that was a distraction. He had a real fear that buildings that should be added to and preserved would now be in danger.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained the Cluster Policy was the focus and not a distraction. There was a level of subjective interpretation in relation to clusters which is why they produced the supplementary planning document, but it was up to Members to interpret the application differently to the Officers. He pointed out that Members needed to be mindful in the long run about the interpretation of the Cluster Policy.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if the application was to develop the stable into a dwelling would that then form a cluster.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said clusters can breed clusters but that would be judged in the future and not at this stage.
Councillor Smithson pointed out that this was complicated. Had there been no building there originally this application would not be approved, but because there had been a building it changed the way this was interpreted. She agreed with Councillor Daly that it was important to protect barns and developers and builders should be mindful of their importance.
The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed it was very important and in this case they asked for a structural survey as part of the application. It was reinforced in the local validation list and in the rural development Supplementary Planning Document. There had been a lot of discussions with applicants around barns and their viability to convert but sometimes they do fall down. It was something they needed to keep a check on though.
Councillor Hedgley reminded everyone that they had already voted and they had now entered into a new level of debate so they should move on to the next vote.
The Chair said it had to be debated as it was a new motion.
Councillor Folley pointed out that it was about the interpretation of a cluster and the majority felt it did form a cluster and so they should now vote.
The Chair sought a proposer and seconder for the recommendation to refuse the officer’s recommendation and instead to approve. On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Folley, it was by majority vote
RESOLVED
Approve subject to the conditions that will be determined by the Planning Officers.
The meeting then adjourned for a comfort break.