Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The South Eastern Area Planning Committee (SEAC), at its meeting on 28 June 2023, had deferred determination of this application to this Committee and the report set out the reason for deferral.  The application had at the District Planning Committee meeting on 11 July 2023 been deferred following receipt of extensive additional information from the Applicant and on advice of the Monitoring Officer and Head of Development Management.  Appendix 1 to the report provided a response to the Applicant’s submission.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that four letters of support and one letter of comment had been received.  The Members’ Update circulated at the SEAC meeting was attached as Appendix 1 to the Members’ Update for information purposes.

Prior to her presentation the Officer provided a verbal update, informing the Committee that further letters of support had been received (making 14 in total), along with legal advice from the Applicant’s Barrister which had been received the day before the Committee meeting.  The Officer then highlighted some of the points raised within the Barrister’s submission, concluding that Officers’ view had not changed in that this was a change of use application for a building that did not have permission.  Therefore, it could not legally be granted.

In response to a question regarding the case law being referred to by the Council, the Lead Legal Specialist and Monitoring Officer explained to the Council why the Kwik-Save case law (Kwik-Save Discount Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Wales (1981) 42 P&CR 166) was no longer felt necessary.  He advised that the Council had, by taking enforcement action, made a decision that this was an unauthorised building and change of use could not be granted for a building that was unlawful.

In accordance with the Council’s public participation scheme, a supporter, Mrs McBean, Parish Council representative, Councillor Down and the Applicant’s Barrister, Mr Whale then addressed the Committee.  In response to comments made the Lead Legal Specialist and Monitoring Officer confirmed that although the enforcement notice had not taken effect it had been issued and it taking effect had only been deferred because the notice was the subject of an appeal.

Councillor K M H Lagan moved the Officers’ recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.  This was duly seconded.

In response to a comment made, the Head of Service – Development Management advised that Officers had never been pressured by Members to issue an Enforcement Notice.

A lengthy debate ensued, during which a number of Members commented and raised questions in relation to the application and the related enforcement action.  In response to the debate, Officers provided the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225