Agenda item

Full application for conversion of existing steel framed building to self build dwelling at Land off High Road, Moulton, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members. 

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• Agreed that the application did not meet policy requirements, but the location was screened so you would not see the property from the road and the design would be in keeping with the holiday lodges that were already on site.
  • Officers responded that the screening in place did not make the application location a sustainable site and by the same rationale houses could then be put in woodlands across the district.
  • The approval of a site for holiday use did not make it suitable for residential use.
• Felt it met the statement in paragraph 7.15 that the development led to an enhancement of its immediate surroundings and the design had been done to a very high standard.
• This application had different circumstances to other self-build applications in the open countryside.
• The level of design presented would not have been possible with a barn that was of a higher architectural relevance.
• The site had well established boundaries and the proposal would enhance this site further.
• The conversion of existing buildings was important, and the scale had already been established from the existing building so this was unlikely to cause any harm to the surrounding community.
• Supportive of the officer’s recommendation as the surrounding holiday lodges were not included in the red line boundary of the application and therefore should not be considered.
• There was a danger that approving this application would open the floodgates to more steel barns being converted in the open countryside.
• The design of the proposal was good, but it was not exceptional and therefore did not outweigh the conflict with the Local Plan policies and any approval would undermine our own development plan.
• Design was subjective and down to personal opinion
  • Officers responded that the threshold for design in the NPPF was that of truly innovative and outstanding and they did not feel that this particular design reached that threshold.
• Would this type of building have been classified as Class Q?
  • Officers confirmed that they would not be Class Q as they would extend the footprint of the building and any building works within that class would need to be minimal.
• The policies allowed for self-build proposals to come forward in sustainable locations. The application’s location was not in the middle of the countryside and was only around 200m from the main road so could be seen as a sustainable location.
  • Officers responded that within the local plan, the location of the application was open countryside, and the relevant policies applied. To go against these policies would undermine the local plan.
• Policy 23 set out a number of points that all had to be complied with, and the application only complied with one so this could not be overcome.

The full debate was not repeated here as a livestream of this Planning Committee Meeting could be viewed on South Holland District Council’s Facebook page for a limited period of time, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

The initial vote to refuse the application was lost. Following further debate and the re-tabling of the vote to refuse the application as no alternative proposal was put forward.

AGREED:

That the application be refused for the reasons detailed at section 9.0 of the report.

(Moved by Councillor Avery, Seconded by Councillor Brewis)