Meeting documents

Application proposal: Outline application for the erection of 1 No. dwelling.

Having earlier declared an interest, Councillor Angie Singleton left the room during consideration of the application.  Councillor Mike Best took the chair for the item.

The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report and outlined the key considerations.  There were no updates to the report.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

In response to a member question, the Planning Officer clarified that the previous applications had been refused under delegated powers.  As the Parish Council had changed their opinion from the previous applications it was felt that the application should be considered by the Committee.

The Committee noted the comments of Martyn Payser and Raymond Whitehead in objection to the application.  Points mentioned included the following:

·         The application had caused stress to the occupants of the neighbouring property;

·         Inadequate parking;

·         There would be an unavoidable discharge of materials on the road;

·         Impact on sewerage infrastructure;

·         No benefit to the community.

The Applicant informed members that the site had previously been divided by the development limit but it no longer existed. He referred to the application being totally new and should be considered under new rules and regulations.  The Parish Council had approved the application because of the need for small family houses in the village.

In response to a member comment, the Area Lead West clarified that the development area policy was changing in terms of what sites were sustainable.  He advised that members needed to assess the application on its own merits whilst having respect to the history and not just the case of the development area.  He drew members’ attention to the Planning Inspector conclusions in that all previous reasons for refusal were based upon the loss of an important visual break between the buildings.  Members also needed to consider if the location was appropriate for the proposed development.

Ward Member, Councillor Andrew Turpin commented that the Parish Council believed that the dwelling was in keeping with the surrounding area, would not be cramped and would be acceptable without a break.  The need for small affordable housing was vital as there was very little in the village.  He referred to a dwelling at the other end of the village that was also irregular in shape which was on the end of a conservation area.

In response to a member comment, the Area Lead West advised that members should have regard to Policy SS2 which focused upon affordable housing and acknowledge the need for housing but also balance this with the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

During discussion on the item, it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the report.  A number of comments were also expressed by members, which included the following:

·         There were no planning reasons to approve the application;

·         The Planning Inspectorate decisions were not based upon the development area.  None of the reasons would change with a change in policy;

·         There was no guarantee that the proposed dwelling would meet the need for low cost housing.

The Planning Officer commented that regardless of the siting of the proposed dwelling there would still be a significant impact on the streetscene.  He felt that all the issues raised by the Planning Inspector still remained.

The Ward Member commented that the dwelling could be moved back to avoid the appearance of cramping.

During further discussion on the item, a member felt that the application was acceptable and should be supported regardless of the planning history. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.  As the original proposal was to refuse the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation, the proposal to refuse was taken first.   On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 8 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.