Agenda item

Application for the retention of Greys Meadow Studio (retrospective).

The committee considered planning application P23/S3077/FUL for the retention of Greys Meadow Studio (retrospective), on land at Greys Meadow Studio, near Rotherfield Greys.  

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was retrospective and sat within the Chilterns National Landscape. He also took the committee through the planning history of the site, noting that an application for the studio was refused in 2020 and an appeal against the corresponding enforcement notice was dismissed in 2022 as the planning inspectorate believed that the building would have a substantially harmful impact on the landscape.

In relation to the officers recommendation about using Section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to decline to determine the application, the planning officer clarified to members that the reasons for this recommendation were due to the fact that, in officers’ opinion, the building proposed in the application was substantially the same as the one that was subject to the extant enforcement notice and that there had also been no material changes in situation since the appeal. This legislation allowed for local authorities to decline to determine an application in such situations in order to prevent applicants taking multiple bites of the cherry and put in further applications for a site subject to enforcement action.

The planning officer informed the committee that they could resolve to either decline to determine the application or resolve to determine it. If the committee did choose to determine the application, the planning officer emphasised that it would not be determined at the current meeting but taken away and determined under delegated authority by officers or that it would be brought back to the committee at a later date.

Due to the application being essentially the same as the one with the extant enforcement notice on it, the planning officer recommended that the committee decline to determine the application.

Nick Digby spoke on behalf of Rotherfield Greys Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Jim Murphy spoke objecting to the application. 

Suzanne Scott, the agent representing the applicant, and Gavin Jackson, the architect, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Jo Robb, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked about another building that was on the site, the stall, but it was confirmed that although it was part of the appeal it did not form part of the current application.

Members inquired into a meeting mentioned by the applicant, held between the head of planning and the applicant. In response, the head of planning clarified to members that he did not believe the advice given was to put an application for the studio forward but that this was not a materially relevant consideration for the committee who should assess the application on its similarities to the building in the enforcement notice. 

On a question about if it was usual for applicants to submit applications after the issuing of an enforcement notice, the head of legal and democratic (interim) clarified that the committee should consider the situation before them; that there was a refused application subject to enforcement and upheld at appeal as it was considered to cause harm to the area, be a detriment to the surrounding setting, failing to conserve or enhance the National Landscape, and that it was in conflict with the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. As officers believed the current application to be substantially the same as the subject of that enforcement notice, they recommended that the committee decide not to determine the application.

In response to a question about what would happen if the committee decided to not determine the application, the head of planning informed members that the council would go back to the enforcement notice that was upheld at appeal, which required the applicant to demolish the studio.

Overall, members agreed that the proposed building in the application was essentially the same as the one subject to the extant enforcement notice. For this reason, they agreed to decline to determine the application.

A motion, moved and seconded, to decline to determine the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to decline to determine application P23/S3077/FUL under Section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).