Meeting documents

Application proposal: The erection of a dwelling and formation of vehicular access.

The Area Lead updated members that the officer report included two reasons for refusal.  The second reason had been included by mistake, and if members were minded to accept the officer recommendation for refusal of the application, the second reason should be disregarded. He then went on to present the application as detailed in the agenda. It was noted that the application site was not immediately adjacent to the main form of the village. The applicant was citing a benefit of the development was the provision of allotments, but this was not considered to be an acceptable benefit in planning terms, and so the officer recommendation was for refusal.

Mr M English, addressed members as the representative for Long Load Parish Council, and his comments included that planning was not all about rules. The applicants had lived in the area for many years and were looking to downsize in retirement. Residents of the nearby caravan park would benefit from the gift of outside space for allotments. The parish council supported the proposal and wanted the benefit of the allotments. He acknowledged the drainage concerns raised by nearby residents.

Mr P Dance, agent, considered the application site to be adjacent to the main village and not in open countryside. He noted the allotments were wanted by the village and that drainage would be a matter for conditions. He invited members to approve the application.

Ward member, Councillor Patrick Palmer, commented that seeking planning permission on this site had been going on for a long time. Issue of the allotments had come to the fore, some might feel they are planning gain or others may consider differently. The site was a derelict plot and not an encroachment of agricultural land as stated in the report. He acknowledged the concerns of a neighbour regarding drainage.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, noted the plans had been discussed long and often by the parish council and they considered it was acceptable to build on the site. The fact the parish council would get something for the village was advantageous.

The Area Lead advised members that the provision of allotments by a Section 106 planning obligation was flawed, and that it might be more appropriate for a unilateral agreement.

During discussion most members indicated their support for the application. Comments made by members included:

·         The proposal was not loss of agricultural land

·         Supportive of approval but drainage must be conditioned

·         Could the provision of allotments be made through a simple written agreement?

·         Need to make sure allotments were tied up as legally as possible

In response to comments made, the Locum Planning Solicitor advised that Section 106 rules were in place to avoid any perception that a benefit was being offered to the Planning Authority over and above what was necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms. In this case, the Committee needed to consider whether "but for the provision of an allotment the Committee would refuse the application". If it was not necessary then the Council could not require it as an S106 obligation and it should not form any part of the Committees decision whether to grant the permission. This did not prevent the applicant entering into an agreement, should they wish to do so, to provide the allotment for the benefit of the community with the Parish Council. 

The Chairman asked Mr English of Long Load Parish Council if he felt the applicant would be willing to enter an agreement as described by the Locum Planning Solicitor – his response was positive.

As members were minded to approve the application, the Area Lead suggested wording for justification would include the bringing forward of a smaller unit of accommodation and facilitating the provision of allotments, and as such complies with policy SS2 of the emerging Local Plan. Conditions would be required for time limit, approved plans, materials and drainage.

It was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the reason and conditions as suggested by the Area Lead. On being put to the vote, members voted unanimously in favour of approving the application.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)