*DM&L.17
The Committee proceeded to consider the report
that had been prepared by the relevant Development Management
Specialists on each of the following Applications and considered
also the comments of the Town and Parish Councils together with
other representations received, which were listed within the
presented agenda report and summarised below:
(a) Application
No: 0529/22/FUL
Ward: Hatherleigh
Site Address: Lower
Longwood Farm, Highampton
Development: Replacement dwelling
(resubmission of 3874/21/FUL)
Recommendation: Refusal
Speakers included: Supporter: Mr Bailey,
Parish Council Representative: Cllr Rose, Local Ward Member: Cllr
Kemp
With the aid of the plans and supporting photo
montages, the Planning Case Officer (DH) introduced the
proposals. In so doing, DH stated that
one of the key reasons for his officer recommendation to refuse
this application was that he did not agree with the application
being described as a ‘replacement
dwelling’. The Committee was
informed that the proposal sought to construct a dwelling on the
site of a now demolished agricultural building.
Before the speakers addressed the Committee,
the Monitoring Officer (DF) was invited to provide a statement on
the relevance of the ‘Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council’ case law and the
Class Q ‘fallback
position’. The Monitoring Officer
proceeded to inform that Class Q enabled for an existing
agricultural building to change its use to that of
residential. He explained the extent to
which limited building operations were (e.g. the adding of windows
and doors). However, Class Q did not
permit for a complete demolition and re-build of a
dwelling. The Monitoring Officer
further explained that a person wishing to rely on Class Q for a
change of use had to obtain the Council’s view as to whether
prior approval was required in respect of certain
matters. He said that if the conditions
were met then there was a planning permission that could be
implemented. The Monitoring Officer
then explained how the existence of a planning permission under
Class Q was capable of being a fallback
position. Firstly, however he
explained what a fallback position was
and that, for a planning permission to be considered to be a
fallback, then there had to be a real
prospect of it being implemented. Mansell decided that a
possibility that it would be implemented was
sufficient. Whether there was a real
prospect or a possibility of it being implemented was a matter of
planning judgment for the Committee. If
the Committee decided that there was a real prospect of the Class Q
permission being implemented, then it was for the Committee to
decide what weight it should have. That
he said involved a judgement as to the comparative advantages and
disadvantages of the development proposal before the Committee and
the development that had been granted permission under Class
Q. The analysis was set out in
the published case officer report.
The Committee was then invited to ask any
questions and proceeded to seek clarity over the: proximity of the
nearest settlement; the proposed increased floor size; the size of
the smallholding; ...
view the full minutes text for item *DM&L .17