Agenda item

Erect garage and plant room.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed block plans and elevations were shown as the Case Officer highlighted that the proposal had been sensitively designed. Details of the proposed high-quality materials such as slate and timber cladding were also provided which had been chosen to be in keeping for the rural location. The officer’s presentation referred to condition 7 when setting out the principle of the development, whilst providing details of the proposed outbuilding which would have provided incidental use to the main dwelling such as dry storage of vehicles, garden equipment and other domestic storage.

The Case Officer discussed the impacts on local amenities, noting the nearest neighbouring property was 98 metres north, a significant distance and the proposal was situated within a well screened area by mature trees and hedgerows which may have been partially visible from some nearby Rights of Way. There were no visual or landscape impacts, biodiversity enhancements would have been carried out on site in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Scheme. There was no flood risk and the Case Officer highlighted that the access would have remained as approved and there were no demonstrable risks to highways safety.

The Case Officer noted that Child Okeford Parish Council had objected to the proposed development on the basis that a condition was imposed on the planning permission for the associated dwelling that removed permitted development rights. The Case Officer explained that this condition was not imposed with the intention of placing an absolute prohibition on further development on the site falling under permitted development rights but to ensure that any such proposed development was subject to scrutiny given the sensitive location of the site.

The officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Public Participation

Mr S Graeser spoke on behalf of the applicant, highlighting that the primary attraction for the proposal was for off grid living. He discussed the use of solar equipment and that the scale and size of the proposal was appropriate. The agent highlighted that there had been a reduction in the height and that the floor level would have been the same as the existing dwelling which was lower than the previous stable building. The proposal received no objections from Highways Officers and a Tree Protection Order had been included to protect the longevity of the oak tree on site. In addition to this, the agent’s representation also highlighted that the proposal would not have created any additional noise and nor would it impact on the character or appearance of the area. There were no material considerations to warrant refusal and Mr S Graeser hoped members would endorse the officer recommendation.

Cllr B Ireland made a representation on behalf of Child Okeford Parish Council. She highlighted the history of the site, noting that permission had previously been granted due to lack of housing supply and the titled balance argument. She felt that the proposal conflicted with several policies which would have impacted the character of the area and would have been detrimental to the impacts on the AONB. Child Okeford Parish Council didn’t feel as though garages or sheds were permitted on site and were concerned that if approved it would have further intensified domestic development. Cllr B Ireland considered public views and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Members questions and comments

• Questions regarding screening and impacts on visibility during winter months.
• Confirmation as to whether the proposal was an intensification of the site.
• Clarification regarding reimposing Permitted Development Rights.
• Clarity regarding original planning documentation and conditions.
• Members discussed the removal and intention of removing permitted development rights when the previous committee considered the application in May 2023.
• The proposal was outside the settlement boundary and was close to the AONB. There had been no change or justification regarding the removal of Permitted Development Rights.
• Members noted that the existing stable block was higher than the proposed building, therefore it would’ve been less visually intrusive.
• Members felt that the applicant had taken on board officer comments and had created a proportionate proposal.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Carole Jones.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.