The Committee considered an application for
the change of use of former agricultural land to domestic
curtilage, retention of boundary fencing, parking area and storage
unit and installation of solar panels at Steel Barn, Middle
Battenhall Farm, Upper Battenhall.
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application had been referred to Planning
Committee at the request of Councillor Mackay on the grounds of
The report set out the background to the
proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself,
relevant policies, planning history and representations and
consultations where applicable.
There were no late papers circulated.
The information was presented as set out by
the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
There had been no one registered to speak on
the application. However a local Ward
Member, Councillor Mackay addressed the Committee in support of the
objections being made with regard to the application.
Key Points of Debate
The local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, referred them
to application PRA17L14 which was granted prior approval in May
2018, whereby concerns had been raised at the time. As time has gone on the development on site had
departed from the prior approval under this application. He was
concerned that that the original plans had not been followed.
The local Ward Member responded to questions from Members with
regard to the original plans and the details of the departure from
these plans and lack of enforcement.
The Chairman stated that developers take a risk when building
without planning permission, others saw it as an abuse of the
planning system and the applicants should revert to the original
plans. It was commented that
enforcement should have been taken place when development was
The Development Management Team Leader responded to Members
questions on points of clarification within the report, primarily
in connection with the prior approval application, permitted
development rights and retrospective applications.
Members generally shared the concerns of the retrospective
application but the Chairman reminded Members, that although they
may not approve the process of how the application had come before
the Committee material planning reasons needed to be
A proposal to refuse the application was made on the grounds of the
sheer extent of the nature of departure from the original
application which was out of character and unduly
overbearing. This was seconded.
The Legal Team Manager asked for clarification
as to whether the application was ‘Minded to Refuse’
and in accordance with the adopted procedure a report would come
back to Committee on the robustness of the reasons for
refusal. The Chairman confirmed that
this would be the case.
Having noted Members discussions the
Development Management Team Leader had drafted out putative reasons
for refusal and read this out to Members which was agreed.
A proposal to refuse the application had been
made and this was seconded and there being no further points made
the Chairman asked the ...
view the full minutes text for item 169.