A timber chalet in Wybunbury due to be demolished because it was built without planning permission can remain and be used for offices, the council has said.
Cheshire East Council’s southern planning committee heard the building at Little Island Livery was originally built as accommodation for a groom.
An enforcement notice was issued which was upheld by an inspector who was not satisfied there was a need for that timber accommodation in the location.
But planning officer Daniel Evans told the committee: “The inspector upheld the enforcement notice to require the building to be removed, but purely on the use of the building rather than its appearance.”
He said the inspector had decided it would have a limited impact on the character of the countryside.
“Since that enforcement notice appeal, they made this application for the building for alternative uses,” said Mr Evans.
“The officer report concludes that it’s appropriate accommodation for the existing equine business on the site … so we accept the use of the building.”
The application being considered was to retain the building for use as offices, a reception and for staff facilities and storage in connection with the existing equine business on site.
Wybunbury Cllr Janet Clowes (Con) speaking as a visiting member, argued the application was not compliant with planning policies.
She said there were hardly any horses on the site and “we [parish council] would argue that this is not needed in relation to this particular operation”.
The applicant’s agent Richard Lee said the business had been using space in the owner’s house for office accommodation but added: “Businesses do evolve and circumstances do evolve.
“We’ve had Covid and do you really want staff, visitors, going into your house when visiting the site?”
Bunbury Cllr Sarah Pochin (Non-grouped) said she was not impressed the application was retrospective.
But she added: “We’ve heard nothing from any of the speakers that this local business is a nuisance in any way to residents.”
Cllr Pochin said she understood the argument of having offices outside the house and moved the application be approved.
This was seconded by Crewe councillor Anthony Critchley (Lab).
Sandbach councillor Mike Benson (Con) said he didn’t agree the application met planning policies.
Willaston councillor Allen Gage (Con) asked why the office accommodation wasn’t critical before now, and said he was 50/50 on the proposal.
Crewe councillor Connor Naismith (Lab) told the committee: “Questions have been asked of the agent about the reason that this building came about, the initial intention for it and what they’re proposing for now and, to me, it seems that the answers he gave seem feasible.”
Committee chair Andrew Kolker (Con) said although retrospective applications were risky they were legitimate.
“My view is that it’s established that it’s a legitimate business in the open countryside,” he said.
“Businesses develop, businesses mature, the needs of businesses change.
“This is assessed as being a requirement for the business, so I make my own conclusions from that.”
Eight councillors voted in favour of approving the application, three voted against and one abstained.
these rules get worse, how do they know how a business operates, they don’t have a scooby do