Agenda item

Note:           Councillor D. Cotton stepped down from the Committee for this item and left the Council Chamber at 6.52 pm.

The Chairman introduced the next item of the meeting, application number 144197, for change of use of existing field to domestic use to grow seasonal fruit and vegetables, at Land rear of 3 Walmsgate, Barlings Lane, Langworth, Lincoln. 

The Officer informed the Members of the Committee that there were no updates to the report, with the application deferred at the last committee meeting for a site visit, which took place on 7th April, followed by a short presentation. The Chairman then invited the first speaker, Steve Harper, the applicant for the application, to address the Committee. The applicant made the following statement.

After giving thanks for the site visit, the applicant stated that he would not repeat his previous remarks that expressed how he would use the land. He professed that he exclusively owned the field and that the lane around the back of the properties was only shared to facilitate access for all three Walmsgate dwellings.

The applicant explained that if the application was refused, the vehicles used to work the site would have to be sited at the front of the property. He asserted that previous comments about other neighbours objecting were incorrect. The speaker concluded by stating that he wanted to improve the land behind his property and use it for sustainable farming.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement and invited the second speaker, Rick Poolton, an objector, to address the Committee. The objector made the following statement.

After giving thanks for the site visit, the speaker stated that he hoped the deferment would have given a chance for the applicant to answer the questions posed to him at the previous meeting. He reiterated that he felt that the application was a ‘trojan horse’ and that the applicant would be able to build on 50% of the land if the application was granted. 

The speaker asserted that the proposed site was six times the size of the applicant’s home, with over 200 metres to use. Mr Poolton felt that the applicant had not answered what he would do with the other 90% of the land, fearing it was on a commercial scale and would likely have a significant impact on his family’s lives.

The speaker confirmed that he shared a private stone track, which allowed access to his paddock, and that allowing for possibly industrial-sized machinery would affect his health. The speaker concluded that the possible detriment would impact his human rights on his health, which included a possible ostentatious building.

The Chairman thanked the speaker for his statement and invited the Legal Adviser to comment on concerns about the impact on human rights made by the objector. The Legal Adviser drew Members’ attention to the Officer’s report on page 46 of the public report pack and stated that every Officer did consider the human rights implications for the individuals in each application when considering their recommendations. 

The Chairman then invited comments from the Planning Officer and Development Management Team Manager. The Team Manager advised that the Members had to consider the application before them and that it was for a change from agricultural to a domestic use. It would allow the applicant to erect domestic outbuildings on up to 50% of the land as a permitted development right, There was a possibility of conditioning the application to remove said rights, but the Officer recalled that the applicant had previously stated this was a factor in making the application.

The Chairman then invited comments from Members. Debate ensued, and Members used information learnt at the site visit to highlight their points.

Responding to a comment about the change of use and removing any permitted development rights for future occupiers, the Development Management Team Manager confirmed that any conditions would have to be reasonable and relevant. A temporary permission could be considered but The Officer stated that the applicant was looking to make a permanent change of use, which this application would give, in particular, the ability to build fixtures without conditions.

The Officer also advised that due to its agricultural use, the existing use would not fall within the definition of development.

Members also debated about the look of the application, with converse opinions on whether the developed site would be noticeable. Members also mentioned concerns about what would happen should the application be granted.

Having been moved and seconded, the Chairman took the vote and, with a majority vote, it was agreed with the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be REFUSED.

Note:            Councillor D. Cotton returned to the Council Chamber at 7.19 pm.