The Committee considered a report on 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,
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application was reported to planning committee
on the 7th May 2020 at which it was deferred, minded to
refuse, on the following grounds:
the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, by reason
of the nature and scale of departures from the scheme granted Prior
Approval under application reference PRA and the boundary fencing
that has been erected, has a harmful visual impact that is out of
character with the visual appearance of the surrounding area. The
proposal would thereby also be contrary to Policy SWDP 21 of the
South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and the aims and
interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to
protect and promote.
The original report was
attached as Appendix 1.
The report set out the comments of the Deputy
Director – Economic Development and Planning relating in
particular to the changes to the proposal since the committee
meeting, primarily the reduction of the height of the fence to 1
metre, assessment of the reason for refusal and an assessment of
the amended proposal. Additional
comments had been received from the applicant which were attached
as Appendix 2 to the report.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to
the late paper which related to correspondence from the City
Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer to the applicant.
information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy
Director –Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction
with a powerpoint presentation for the item.
Senior Planning Officer continued to recommend the application for
approval but if Members resolved to refuse the application then a
suggested reason for refusal was given at paragraph 6.1 of the
report, although it remained her opinion that the reason was not
sufficiently robust in light of the changes made in the
conditions previously proposed had been revised and updated in line
with the changes made, which were set out in paragraph 5.1 of the
There had been no one registered to speak on
Key Points of
It was commented by some Members that the reasons
for refusal were the same as previously and nothing fundamental had
changed. It was felt that the delay in
the application coming back to Committee was to come up with
reasons for defending at appeal. It was
also felt that the reasons for refusal at the last Committee had
not been fully addressed. It was asked
how many appeals have the local authority lost and how many have
had costs awarded to us. A proposal to
refuse the application was made citing the reason as set out in
paragraph 6.1 of the report.
The Legal Team Manager, in response to the comments ...
view the full minutes text for item 14.