DLP Planning working with 39 Essex Chambers and Saloria Architects are delighted to have secured planning permission at appeal, on behalf of our client, for the change of use of the existing ancillary outbuilding on site to an independent dwelling for the sole use of our client at Macs Farm, Stoke Poges.
The site has an extensive planning history. In 2009, a CLOPED was issued for an outbuilding (which formed the appeal site) and was erected as an ancillary building to the rear of Macs Farm, a detached dwelling house accessed from Farthing Green Lane. However, the Council considered that a separate dwelling had been erected, which became the subject of enforcement action with a Notice being served in 2012 requiring its demolition and the removal of all resulting materials from the land.
An appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed, but this decision was subject to a High Court Challenge. At the interim hearing, the Judge suggested Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means of resolving the differences between the parties. Through this process both parties agreed a Section 106 agreement in 2014, which ‘stayed’ the effect of the Notice which remains valid. The agreement between the Council and the Applicant meant that the outbuilding could remain provided it was used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling house in accordance with the requirements of the S.106 Agreement.
The Council refused the initial application, which proposed the change of use of the existing ancillary building on site to an independent dwelling, solely for the use of the Applicant on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the impact on openness.
However, in allowing the appeal, the Inspector agreed with the Appellant’s case that the appeal proposal would reuse a building of permanent and substantial construction that is readily capable of conversion, which would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
The Inspector also found that the creation of a separate dwelling would result in limited activity and associated paraphernalia and would not result in any additional harm to the Green Belt or the character and appearance of the area.