URL: https://democracy.telford.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=241

Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: This application was for the change of use of land from agriculture land to private garden land at land adjacent Hillside, Middle Lane, Cold Hatton Heath, Telford, Shropshire.   The application was before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Stephen Bentley, Ward Councillor.   The Planning Officer informed Members that some additional photographs had been received since publication of the report and that these would be shown in the presentation.   Councillor S Bentley spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the natural boundaries, the use of agricultural land and Hillside being a smallholding, the gateway into a larger open field, change of use would allow potential development and development rights needed to be considered.  A Certificate of Lawfulness had been refused as it was considered to be in open countryside and there had been an installation of a large play area which had been subject to removal by enforcement, this application had come forward within three months and he failed to see what had changed.  He felt that agricultural land needed to be protected and a change of use to garden land took away from this and that Hillside had increased its footprint three-fold.  The application was not supported by Policy SP3 and it was not supported by the NPPF and he asked that the Committee refuse the application.   Ms T Luckman, member of public, spoke against the application and asked Members to refuse the change of use from agricultural land.  She raised concerns that this would wrap the eastern and rear boundary of her property along the full length.  It conflicted with the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan, the Waters Upton Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF, it fell within the Green Network Framework which protected green spaces, rural encroachment into agricultural land was considered harmful without a justified need.  The land remained part of the agricultural land within Cold Hatton and continued to be farmed at the rear and was highly visible from Middle Lane and contributed to its undeveloped character a change of use would introduce suburban characteristics permanently altering the street scene. It was contrary to Policy SP3 and BE1 and once the land became residential curtilage it would be easier to justify future development proposals.   The Applicant spoke in favour of the application explaining that they had purchased Hillside in 2022 as a complete renovation project and that the property had been a dilapidated bungalow with no kerb appeal.  The land in question had been maintained as a mown lawn and was intended for use as a garden and a play space for their children.  It was confirmed that the hedgerows and gates would remain in place and regular maintenance would take place and the existing laurel hedge provided privacy at one metre thick.  This parcel of land had not been used for agricultural purposes for a significant period and had not been physically separated from the current garden land.  There had been no objection to the change of use from the Parish Council and that the remaining field would continue to be used for livestock as part of their small holding.  This area was vistal for family use and enjoyment and that the property footprint had not been extended other than a few minor additions.   The Planning Officer informed Members that the parcel of land was situated to the west of the existing dwelling, forming an infill plot between the dwelling and the neighbouring property, Lindale. It was confirmed that no built structures, including outbuildings, were proposed as part of the application.  Since the report was produced, the applicant had submitted a block plan showing the existing boundary treatments, which were not proposed to be altered.  The site was located within the rural area and, although previously used as agricultural land, the application sought to change its use to garden land. The land was classified as Grade 4 agricultural land, and policy SP3 of the Local Plan related only to Grades 1, 2 and 3a and the loss of agricultural land was therefore considered minimal and the proposal acceptable in principle.  Members were asked to note that the proposed boundary line aligned with the existing amenity area and would maintain a strong and consistent boundary without encroaching into open countryside.   While the parcel was large, the Planning Officer considered it proportionate to the dwelling and consistent with the character of the area.   Existing landscaping and hedgerows would remain, and permitted development rights for outbuildings, fences, gates, walls and hard surfacing would be removed by condition. A further condition would require retention of existing soft landscaping. It was considered that the proposal would not impact on neighbouring amenity or privacy.  Comments raised during consultation had been addressed, including clarification that a previously refused Lawful Development Certificate was materially different from the current application and no objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The proposal was acceptable in principle and would not cause significant harm to the character or amenity of the area.  It was therefore requested that delegated authority be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission subject to conditions.   During the debate, some Members considered that the scheme fit in well with the surrounding area and turning the land into garden was a positive change.  It was necessary to protect agricultural land where possible but that as the land had been assessed as grade 4 land and sat as an infill plot between two residential properties it was not viable farmland and did not harm the agriculture or rural character.  The removal of the permitted development rights was welcomed.  Other Members asked why the application was being considered as it had only been two months from the refusal of the Lawful Development Certificate as the policy had not changed and also asked whether the access would be retained to the buildings on the land.     The Planning Officer confirmed that the Lawful Development Certificate was assessed differently and was evidence based and not decided on policy grounds.  Access to the agricultural building on the land would be retained.   The Legal Advisor confirmed that the Lawful Development Certificate considered whether an action that was already taking place was considered lawful or whether planning permission was required.  This being the case the previous Lawful Development Certificate did not meet this criteria and the subsequent full planning application was before Members for consideration.   Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:   RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions or any later variations) subject to the following:   a)        The conditions (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager) set out in the report.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2025