Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer response thereto:-

Are Members correct in saying that ‘covenants’ is not a material planning consideration?

Yes, that is correct.

If the applicant has the correct application and licence then planning permission is not required, is that correct and why is this application before Members if planning permission is not needed?

Essentially it was down to the applicant’s discretion, and they would rather go in for full planning permission rather than a lawful development certificate and that is why the application is before Members today.

Could you expand on that a bit?

In these circumstances, Members’ debate has been on a case law basis. The debate is ‘what is the material change?’. Members are looking at a change of use from a C3 to a C2 which is a change from a standard residential property to a children’s home, but it is a degree of how institutionalised or how significant a change to that children’s home is considered to be material. Case law holds up that in small cases of very minor change, it could be held to be lawful and that there is no significant material change, whereas if the children’s home was a significant home with a lot of children and resources, it is considered to be a material change. In this case, the fallback is argued or potentially to be argued that because it is similar to a five-bedroom property in the nature of size and scale being proposed, that it could be regarded as non-material. It is a matter of judgement. The applicant could come back in if this was refused, with a certificate of lawful use application that Officers would have to consider that degree of material change. The applicant has decided not to do that and instead, decided to come in with an application for change of use and the degree of change of use is to be determined on its own merits. There is also another difference between the two, a certificate of lawful use is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ‘is this needing planning?’ whereas a full application, which is before Members today, is also determining its merits but also gives the opportunity to impose restrictions on that proposal. In the Officer report (A.2), Officers are asking for two restrictions which is the car park spaces and the number of residents in the property as well.

If Members were to go against this application hypothetically, would it be possible to revert back for applying for a lawful licence on this land?

If Members were to refuse this application, the applicant can appeal and a planning inspector will look at the merits of the case again and that would include any material consideration and any permitted development rights etc. Another choice the applicant may have or to do both which is to appeal and come back with a fresh application to the Council. The applicant would have many options.

Would the Highways Authority have taken the amount of activity with cars into consideration to not object?

Highways Authority have not objected to the application, but they have said that the proposal would not result in a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site and therefore would have no objections. They have suggested some conditions on parking area and the parking spaces which have been included.

Has the road got any yellow or white lines at the front of the property?

Looking at Google maps, there are yellow lines and it is a 30mph road. Everything East of the access is double yellow lines. Parking would be restrictive because of the nature of the road.

The lawful certificate does not come with conditions, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. There is an exercise that whether or not something requires planning permission or not and the Council cannot condition that. Members are debating the merits of this planning application, but Members are considering what are the material considerations and considering what weight Members are giving to those.

Could Members put a restriction on how many vehicles at one time are at the property?

Members could but how could that be enforced? Members have to consider what is reasonable and enforceable. Given all other consideration, Officers and Members would be unreasonable and unenforceable to condition the restriction of vehicles at the property.