11/00273 Retrospective application for the erection of a barn BayView Road

The Planning application was Granted  on the 12/07/2013, but is very much still in question due to planning history below:

  1. 991  Planning application submitted for pole barn/field shelter, hay/straw barn and manege 91/00777. Permission granted with conditions. Field shelter/ pole barn was built before the application had been determined. 
  2. Sometime in the ’90′s DDC lost the scale  of the approved plans during the scanning process which  enabled them to view plans on their computers. No measurements had been written on the actual drawings.
  3. May 1996 Kelf Farm sold due to divorce, no longer a riding school.  Land for barn retained by applicant but sold to his brother in July 1996.
  4. May 2001  Land repurchased and now registered as belonging to applicant’s own property company.
  5. 2001/2002, concrete base put down for the barn with steel girder framework. Remained like this until  March 2010.
  6. March 2010, Original barn base dug up and girders cut up and removed, allegedly due to their poor condition. DDC were sent many photos proving the girders were  perfectly sound.  New concrete base put down.
  7. December 2010 New barn erected with no resemblance to the approved 1991 barn. 
  8. Emails dated March 3rd & 15th  2011 prove the 2 Investigating Officers (planning) were not using and quoting from the approved plans, but from  new plans that had been drawn up, based on un-submitted, un-approved 1993 drawings . Correspondence between  the company who supplied the new barn and the applicant exists.
  9. 25th March 2011 the retrospective application for the hay/straw barn was submitted. NB this was 22 & 10 days after  the 2 Investigating Officers sent the emails that prove they were not using the correct plans.
  10. Official complaint made to DDC about the Officers’ handling of the case but DDC they did not find fault with themselves.  Complaint to LGO, but complaint was misconstrued and no fault found with DDC.
  11. Many objections to the retrospective  application as the applicant no longer had a riding school  therefore did not need a barn.
  12. February 2013, 1st Planning Committee Meeting.  Decision deferred in order to clarify the intended use of the barn, as applicant had denied it was to be for his daughter’s pony.
  13. March 2013 applicant confirmed to the Case Officer, that he only wanted the hay/straw barn as approved in 1991. She  offered him stabling for 2 horses and he accepted the idea.   The application suddenly metamorphosed from a, ‘retrospective application for a  barn’, into a , ‘retrospective application for a barn for the storage of hay/straw and stabling for 2 horses, and the use of the land for the keeping of 2 horses’.  More objections submitted.
  14. July 2013, 2nd Planning Committee Meeting.  At least 12 of the 18 objectors did not receive the letter informing them of the meeting. Formal complaint about this to DDC resulted in them saying that; all letters were sent out, so the error was not with the Council, oddly  all objectors had the letter informing them of the outcome.   No one was there to speak against the application and contradict the report that had been issued to the Committee.  A lot of the July report was the opposite of February’s,and many things stated in it were untrue.  Planning department still maintained that the barn had extant permission based on the fact that development had commenced with the building of  the pole barn/field shelter in 1991.   Permission granted.

A search of the planning file after PP had been granted, revealed that the barn’s extant permission  does not exist as there was a breach of condition 5 in 1991.  Details of materials and colours for the buildings should have been submitted before development began.   This information was available to the planning department in June 2012 in  a publication called ‘Planning’, in which a Planning Officer had submitted a question in a Q&A forum.  Residents and the Planning Committee appear to have been misled with regard to the extant permission.

MP has been asked to interve