My father Mr Howard Burton will be speaking on my behalf (and on behalf of any residents of Belton who wish to supply their names and addresses), at the RCC planning meeting of February 14th, commencing 6 pm sharp. He only has 3 minutes to speak and you will find the correspondence below with the bullet points that he will deliver. Sir Alan Duncan will also be delivering a letter on my behalf through Helen Briggs at this meeting, which I also attach for your information.
If you wish to be included as an interested party please email your names and addresses to:
firstname.lastname@example.org,( as unfortunately, I am away on holiday.) and she will kindly submit them all.
Thank you in advance to anyone who feels strongly enough to support.
Rt.Hon. Sir Alan Duncan MP.
PLANNING APPLICATION 2016/1045/FUL
DRAFT STATEMENT TO BE READ AT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
5.. The new garage is exceptionally high, close to the boundaries with numbers 5, 7 &9 Chapel Street and also with 1a Loddington Lane. This garage together with the large amount of new gable, dominates the site when viewed from the properties to the south of the site and are overbearing to those curtilages.
9.It appears that the applicant`s intention has been to carry out work to destroy the elements which are subject to retention under the stated planning principles and the existing consent ,so that there appears nothing to retain. We ask the planning authority not to condone this technique and to refuse consent.
Dear Sir Alan,
Planning application 2016/1045/FUL
Variation of condition 2 in consent FUL/2008/0869
I am writing as suggested by Lesley Baldam to clarify my earlier correspondence and so that you may forward my concerns to Helen Briggs to be included in the planning meeting of 14/02/17 as agreed.
I have objected to a planning application under the above reference for development on an adjacent property. Building is continuing on the property in contravention of the terms of consent. I believe that the manner of the contravention raises issues for the planning system which go beyond the purely professional assessment of the building work.
Work on this site and, I believe, on two other sites in Belton-in-Rutland is being carried out in deliberate contravention of planning consents. If three instances are occurring in this one village it is probably safe to assume that this sort activity is being or has been repeated on many sites or occasions throughout Rutland and possibly the country as a whole. If this is the case the principle is something which is suitable to bring to your attention as Member of Parliament for Rutland.
Such actions could be aimed at coercing a local planning authority into giving consent to completed work which would not have been given prior to work commencing. Pressure is immediately put onto the planning authority to either undertake enforcement action which is costly in funds and resources or to consider giving approval to “normalise” the existence of the work which would otherwise not be approved.
We have a highly respected and effective planning system in this country but as with any system of regulation it requires the acceptance or acquiescence of the people being regulated. If some of these people are seen to benefit by defying the established rules, then the acquiescence or support of the majority for the system will be in danger of being lost.
Rutland County Council has set out clear and well defined policies and principles for its planning control including objectives for Belton-in-Rutland in published planning statements and supplementary documents. These allow for organic development with a principle of conserving buildings and character to retain an idea of the origins of the village. These show in the treatment of the former Home Farm farmstead which now has consent for four dwellings on separate plots within the stead. The existing stone and brick farm buildings have been retained and converted on two plots with additions or alterations subservient to the original buildings with the barn and stable which is the subject of this appeal having consent to convert on a similar basis the fourth plot has consent for a completely new house to be built in the manner of a barn conversion thus maintaining the reference to the former agricultural nature of the site.
The contraventions of the consent for the conversion of the brick and stone barn and stables could be argued to be minor when viewed in isolation-a few feet of extra height of brickwork on the extension a few extra feet of height on the ridge of the approved extension new brick instead of reclaimed brick a larger garage with residential use plus a change in ridge orientation and a new high gable facing number 9 Chapel Street-but they destroy the principles of the planning objectives set out for the village and the specific rules set out in supplementary planning document March 2015 –“extensions to dwellings”
Objectors to this application have been advised to comment on the proposal as if it were completely new and to cease drawing comparisons with the original consent. This is not possible due to the fact that the original consent FL/2008/0869 approved not only the conversion of the stable barn but the building of an adjacent new build property. Both properties were granted permission for identical garages. This means that permission granted for a larger garage rotated 90 degrees with residential use sets a precedent to alter the garage permissions next door and will increase the overbearing at the boundary. The creation of two unnecessarily large garages would also destroy the balance between the buildings representing the farmstead as a tribute to the original farmstead and are incongruous structures.