Agenda item

The Wicket, 7 Granby Lane, Plungar

 

Applicant: Mr Leon Dolby

Location: The Wicket, 7 Granby Lane, Plungar

Proposal: Change of use of paddock to garden use (retrospective)

 

(a)  The Planning Officer stated that:

 

The following application is a change of use from paddock to residential.

The land is to the west and south of the host dwelling and is allocated as open

space under the old local plan policy BE12.

The site has however been reassessed in a landscape study of 2015 as having limited public visibility and does not relate to the settlement character.

For this reason it is considered an acceptable change and therefore

recommended for approval.

In addition there has been a concern about the motor cross use at the site and it remains that there is no evidence to suggest a material change of use exists.

Any noise issues need to be taken up with the MBC environmental health team where a diary account of when this takes place is needed.

 

(b) Cllr Ian Lowther, a parish councillor, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Residents upset about motor cross activities

·         Motor cross track not permitted and no action taken

·         Environmental nuisance

·         Smoke and noise issues

·         Affects landscape quality

·         Development not approved in old Local Plan

·         Adverse impact on landscape character

·         Rural village scheme disappears

·         If changed to garden more likely to be developed as housing

·         Should be enforceable conditions that no housing can be built on land and

·         motocross course removed

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services sought clarification whether the site was used for motor cross competitions.

 

Cllr Lowther confirmed that it was not but said that the owner competed in

competitions.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services asked if it could be explained how using the site as a garden instead of it being a field detracts from its open character.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that the use would possibly be the same however there are concerns that a garden may be considered ‘fair game’ for development whereas protected open land may not.

 

Cllr Chandler asked if there was a Contravention Order.

 

Cllr Lowther stated that a Notice had been issued.

 

(c) Margaret Adams, an objector, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Owner of adjacent garden to site

·         Change of use eases way for residential development

·         Motorcycle use should only be 14 days of the year

·         Potential to exceed 14 days if paddock is changed to a garden

·         Needs enforcing

·         Previous complaint registered has not been resolved

·         Noise and smell impacts

·         Adverse impact on residential amenities

 

 

(d) Leon Dolby, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         No development on land

·         Opportunity to make garden as good as possible for family

·         Use of motor cross course 20 minutes at a time

·          

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that residents had supplied a list of dates and times of use that convey different accounts that were conveyed in the report.

 

The Applicant stated that he also had a diary of dates and times, and the noise is similar to that of a strimmer.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that a notice had been served and it is an investigatory tool. The land becoming a garden does not mean it will be developed and policies in the NPPF suggest this should be avoided. There is no need for the motocross use to have planning permission as it would be for domestic use which would not amount to a change of use. If it was used for competitions, it would need different permission.

 

The Planning Officer stated that environmental health can monitor noise.

 

Cllr Posnett proposed to permit the application and stated that it was to change a paddock to a garden, and either could be developed.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal to permit.

 

A Member stated that they could not support due to the noise that will affect the residential amenities of neighbours. Use of the paddock as a garden would be fine but concerns on the motocross course.

 

A Member asked if the site was left as a paddock, would it still be a nuisance.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services stated that there would be a restriction of use to 14 days a year in these circumstances.

 

Cllr Holmes proposed to refuse the application as it would disturb neighbouring residents.

 

A vote was taken to permit the application. 5 Members voted in favour of the

proposal. 6 Members voted against.

 

The Chair proposed to refuse the application.

 

Cllr Wyatt seconded the proposal to refuse.

 

A Member asked for the reasons for refusal as they were concerned it would not be refused on planning matters.

 

The Chair stated that they would be losing enforcement of the paddock.

 

The Planning Officer clarified that the decision should be made based on the

question of if the area is suitable to be used as a garden. The motocross course could be used on the land whether it is a garden or a paddock, albeit limited in the case of the latter.

 

The Chair withdrew his proposal to refuse and revisited the proposal to permit based on the use of land as a garden as other issues are subsequent.

 

Cllr Posnett proposed to permit the application.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal to permit.

 

A vote was taken. 5 Members voted in favour of the proposal. 4 Members voted against. 2 Members abstained.

 

DETERMINATION: PERMIT, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the following reasons:

The proposal is for a change of use of land that according to the most recent appraisal (September 2015) is of very limited value. The proposed change of use to garden is considered to be development that will not change significantly the character of the area. In addition to this, conditions will be imposed to restrict the development of any buildings etc. without consent of the LPA.

In conclusion it is considered that, on the balance of the issues, the proposal is acceptable, but it is accepted that this is a finely balanced case.

Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF that permission should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the

benefits; it is considered that permission can be granted.

 

 

A break was taken at 8.00pm.

 

Cllr Botterill left the meeting at 8.04pm.

 

The meeting reconvened at 8.07pm.