Parishioners
Mr N Holland Brown, Ms A Law and Mr N Hayward
Mr and
Mrs M Ruffles (part time)
1-0708/4 – Chairman’s Welcome and
Apologies for Absence
The Chairman welcomed Councillors and visitors
to the meeting and advised that there were apologies for absence from Councillors
S Thurlow and K Churchill.
2-0708/4 – To Receive Councillors’
Declaration of Interest in Agenda Items
There were no declarations of interest.
3-0708/4 – Planning Application
C07/1223/FUL – 53 The Street, First floor extension and other changes
After discussion, the Council agreed to
advise SCDC of the following :-
(i)
Because this application covers a proposal in the conservation
area it has been given considerable attention by the Council
(ii)
The Site Plan does not show the existing western extension
and is therefore misleading and prevents proper consideration of the
application.
(iii)
The Council strongly resists solar panels fixed to any
elevations facing The Street.
(iv)
The Council would prefer that both the new upper
extension and the existing lower extension be rendered.
The Clerk was instructed to so advise SCDC
4-0708/4 – Planning Application C07/1491/FUL
– Rose Farm Cottage, Mutton Lane, Change of use from agricultural to garden
After
discussion, the Council agreed that they had no objection in principle subject
to the following conditions being applied:-
(i)
In order to avoid intensification of traffic in a narrow lane, the
access(es) from the highway shall only serve Rose Farm Cottage as a single
dwelling and no other.
(ii)
Permitted development rights to be withdrawn.
(iii)
No use for any form of business be permitted.
In
addition, the Council noted the following :-
(i)
The Site
Plan/Location Plan and the Application Form state that the area of land amounts
to 2.899 hectares (approximately 7.16 acres) but the relevant Ordinance Survey
map indicates an area of 1.204 acres. The Application Form gives the frontage
as 47.23 metres and depth as 76.99 metres. This computes (based upon a
rectangular plot, which it is not) to an area of 3.636 hectares. Which is the
correct size?
(ii)
The
Site Plan/Location Plan indicates that part of the land for which change of use
is sought, “has been in continuous use as a garden to Rose Farm Cottage since
1978”. My Council strenuously reject this statement
The Clerk was instructed to so advise SCDC
5-0708/4 – Advice from Mr M Ruffles on Works at Red House Barn, The
Street
The Chairman adjourned the meeting to
permit Mr Ruffles to advise the Council as set out in the notes attached at the
end of these minutes
Mr Ruffles and partner then left and the
Chairman reconvened the meeting
The Council discussed this matter further
and made the following points were raised :-
(i)
It is clear that the planning consent has been
breached because work has started without agreement on finishes, window styles
and many other conditions of the consent. (In addition to the matter of use as
a builder’s yard as already raised by the Council). The Council considered that
this could invalidate the consent.
The Council
questioned the point of detailed consent conditions if SCDC do not act with
sufficient diligence to ensure that they are met.
(ii)
The consent applied to a “Barn Conversion” but Mr
Ruffles current intentions amount to a new build.
(iii)
The Council consider that new roof tiles will be
inappropriate – either the existing or reclaimed tiles should be used.
(iv)
The Council considered pressing for a completely new
application but agreed that this proposal should be held in abeyance. In view
of the way in which the existing conditions had been ignored, they questioned
whether any conditions of a new application and consent would be adhered to.
At the conclusion of this discussion, the
Council instructed the Clerk to write to Mr A Knowles, Enforcement Officer at
SCDC (with copy to District Councillor R Snell) raising the following issues :-
(i)
The Council’s and parishioners’ strong concerns at the
way in which this matter has been dealt with by SCDC and the failure to keep
the Council properly informed.
(ii)
It is understood from the applicant that a “stop
order” has been imposed by SCDC but the reasoning behind this is unclear to the
Council.
(iii)
No copy of the consent condition with regard to the
schedule of repairs is available to SCDC and the Council wish to know what
action is intended to remedy this shortcoming.
(iv)
Requesting full information of the intended future
actions of SCDC and their timescales and requesting a fully detailed response
from them by 15 September 2007, in order that the Council may be completely
informed at their next meeting.
6-0708/4 - Any other business as may be
raised and accepted as appropriate by the Chairman
There were no items for discussion under
this heading.
Date of Next Meeting
Date of next meeting was confirmed as 26
Sept 2007 at 8.00 pm at the village hall.
The meeting closed at 10.30 pm
NOTES OF ADVICE OF MR M RUFFLES (see minute 5-0708/4)
Mr Ruffles explained that he had requested
meeting the Council in order to advise why the timber roof had been removed.
The original barn had been constructed
from two buildings with softwood being used to raise the roof level at the
western end to match that at the eastern end. Since removing the roof tiles to
examine the structure in more detail, approximately one year ago, the structure
has deteriorated. In addition, it has become clear that there had been a fire in
the eastern end in the past. Some of the oak structure which has been removed
but retained on site is in poor condition and there is now no way in which the
structure would support a full roof. Therefore, Mr Ruffles stated, he is proposing
to erect a new oak framed building with new roof tiles (and SCDC have agreed
suitable tiles with him) with two new wings to the south.
His intention is to demolish the southern Dutch
barn after use as for temporary building material storage during the
construction period; also, to demolish half the western barn using the
remainder for holiday lets. However, after consultation with SCDC he is now
considering taking down the whole of the western barn and establishing holiday
lets.
Mr Ruffles advised that a “stop order” had
been imposed by SCDC.
Some discussion took place and Mr Ruffles
provided some minor clarifications. The Clerk pointed out to Mr Ruffles that
the Council’s objection to the works (by their letter of 02 May 2007) had been
that the site was being used as a builder’s yard for storage of materials and
equipment and dumping of rubble – well before the roof was removed. Mr Ruffles claimed
that this was not the case but that delays in starting the works meant that
some storage had been inevitable.
Mr Ruffles undertook to clear the rubbish
from the site but said that good topsoil would be delivered to the site as and
when available to be used when much of the concrete was broken up and removed.
The Council accepted this as reasonable.
Mr Ruffles also said he was considering
demolishing the concrete block walls at the eastern end and building a more
suitable type of garage due to one wall being cracked and that there were
several doorways to infill.