Outbuilding to dwelling conversion at Bay Tree Cottage, Arlingham, Gloucester

A resident objects over precedent and safety

A resident said approving the retrospective application would set a precedent for building first and seeking permission later, and raised fears over highway safety on the narrow access.

The Ward Member presses for refusal

The Ward Member said the applicant had knowingly built the wrong structure, that plan inaccuracies had needed correcting, and urged refusal over unsafe reversing access to the highway.

Members question the change in recommendation

A councillor queried why approval was now recommended after earlier refusals, and officers explained that resolving the appeal's sole reason for refusal, with no other material change, led to the new recommendation.

“Councillor Mathews queried the timeline of the application, and why the LPA should now be recommending approval of the application having previously refused it, and with the subsequent appeal also recommending refusal and being afforded weight.”

“In response to Councillor Callinan, the Chief Planning Officer explained that any decision could be appealed by the applicant, and if the Committee were minded to refuse the application, they would require sound reasoning as to why that would stand up to scrutiny in an appeal, or the Council was at significant risk of costs due to the resolution of the Inspector’s original decision.”

Minutes

Appeal risk and policy weight discussed

Officers and the council's lawyer explained any refusal would need facts materially different from those the Inspector considered, and that a previous Inspector's findings carried significant weight.

“The Principal Planning Lawyer agreed and noted the challenge presented by the weight given to the Inspector’s decision without it being binding to the present decision. He explained that any refusal would need to be backed by facts materially different to those considered by the Inspector, and for those to be resolutely supported by planning policy. There was a risk of costs if a future appeal was allowed however that would be for a future Inspector to determine.”

“In response to Councillor Mathews considering the weight given to the Inspector’s report, the Chief Planning Officer read the final paragraph of the appeal decision for Members, and highlighted: • The development was acceptable when considered against the effect on highway safety, the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and whether the development provided satisfactory garden space for the occupiers.”

Minutes

Approved six votes to one

A motion to approve the application as officers recommended was proposed, seconded, and passed by six votes to one with two abstentions.

“Councillor Mathews proposed the Officer recommendation to approve the application.”

“On being put to a vote, the motion was passed with 6 votes in favour, 1 against, and 2 abstentions.”

Minutes