Agenda item

Retrospective application for the retention of extended patio and erection of front porch (previously refused application 23/00657/FL) (Affecting a public right of way) at Tanglewood, Newmarket Lane, Clay Cross.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Retrospective Application had been submitted for the retention of an extended patio and the erection of Front Porch at Tanglewood, Newmarket Lane, Clay Cross. It related to a previously refused application 23/00657/FL and affected a public right of way.

The Application had been referred to the Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor G Morley, who had raised issues about it.

Planning Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Members were reminded that planning permission had previously been granted to convert the dwelling known as ‘Tanglewood’ into Tea Rooms. The latest Application sought retrospective permission for two of the specific developments that were constructed on the site, but which were not permitted as part of the original planning permission. These were the Front Porch and the ‘wrap-around’ Patio surrounding the building).

Officers felt that this retrospective planning permission should not be granted. They contended that the Porch and Patio constituted an unacceptable development, that did not respect the form, scale or character of the surrounding sensitive landscape. Rather, they had extended the built development into the open countryside, which had had an additional and overbearing urbanising impact on the area.  Officers concluded that the potential benefits to the Tea Rooms from the Porch and the enlarged south facing Patio, in terms of attracting additional visitors, would not outweigh the harm they would have on the surrounding landscape. Consequently, the Application ought to be refused.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Before the Committee considered the Application it heard from local ward Member, Councillor G Morley. It also heard from the Applicant, M Meredith and from B Lyne, who both spoke in support of the Application. No one had registered to speak against the Application.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the site’s location outside of any Settlement Development Limits and within open countryside,

designated as an area of Secondary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES). It considered the relevant local and national Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS1, directing developments to suitable locations in accordance with other appropriate policies within the Local Plan, Local Plan Policy SS9 on acceptable development within the countryside and Local Plan Policy SDC3, requiring developments in the countryside to respect the character or sensitivity of the landscape. Committee also took into account Local Plan Policy WC5, promoting Visitor and Tourism Development and Local Plan Policy SDC12, on High Quality Design and Place Making.

Members discussed the report.  They reflected on what impact the construction of the Porch and Patio had had on the surrounding countryside and whether this was different to the impact of the permitted development as a whole. Some Members questioned whether conditions requiring appropriate landscaping to help reduce the visual impact of the developments might be imposed if retrospective planning permission was granted. Some Members felt that the additional features had benefited the Tea Rooms and promoted tourism in the area and so should be retained. Other Members queried whether the development would be in line with the appropriate planning policies preventing inappropriate development in the countryside.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillors F Petersen and D Cheetham moved and seconded a Motion that the Application should be approved. The Motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED -

That the Application be conditionally approved, contrary to officer recommendations.

That the Planning Manager (Development Manager) be authorised to determine appropriate conditions on the development.

Reasons

The Development is in line with SDC 3, respecting the form and character of the countryside.