Agenda item

To consider an application for the change of use of agricultural to Use Class C3 Residential. Erection of 1no. single storey dwellinghouse

That planning application 2022/2509/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the proposal represented a sustainable development, with a low impact design, no harm to the visual amenity and no harmful impact on the rural character of the area and wider landscape. That delegated authority be given to Officers to impose necessary planning conditions, to be agreed in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and division Members.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that whilst this application was debated at planning committee on 7th May it subsequently became apparent that the letters notifying interest parties that the application would be heard at planning committee wrongly advised that it would be held at the July meeting. To enable those parties an opportunity to register to speak against the item and for Members to consider any such representations, the application was brought back to Committee. The application had been referred to the Planning Committee in the first instance as the applicant was a member of staff.

The application related to land located outside of the development limits of Norton St Philip. The land is a small holding including fruit and vegetable growing and there is an orchard which is identified as a priority habitat. The site is also within a bat consultation zone and accessed via an unclassified and unconsolidated lane called Vicarage Lane.

The Report concluded that the proposal had been submitted as a self-build application but it failed to meet the criteria of Policy DP24 as the site was not part of, or adjacent to the nearest recognisable settlement; the scale of the development exceeded the limitations set out in the policy and the design was not in harmony with the character of the area, or of a suitable design which is appropriate to its location. Accordingly, the proposal would result in an isolated rural dwelling in the countryside where development is strictly controlled. Also, the design and scale of the development failed to reflect the character of the area and thus failed to contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness. Together with the concerns with the siting in an isolated location and failure to meet the tests in terms of the principle of development, it would result in unjustified encroachment into the open countryside that would have a significant harmful impact on the rural character of the area and wider landscape. In conclusion, the Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

There were 3 speakers in support of the application. Their comments included the following:

• The site is not isolated. Children can walk to school and the village shop.
• The site is only 91 metres from the development limit.
• It is a low impact, sustainable dwelling and it should be supported.
• The documents referenced in the Officer’s report refer to the first application, not this current application and are therefore misleading. The application is within the permitted size.
• It is a single storey dwelling and clad in local stone. It has a low visual impact and is in keeping with the village.
• 4 other houses have been built outside the development limit in the last 10 years.
• This will be a small, low impact dwelling where the owner will continue to grow food to supply the local community, thus reducing the need to rely on travel to supermarkets.

The next speaker was the Chair of the Parish Council. He explained that after an extensive debate the Parish Council had decided to support the application. He said that the applicant’s family had lived in the village for over 45 years and the applicant wanted to live and bring up his own family in the village he had grown up in. Houses in the village are very expensive and it is difficult for people born in the village to continue to live there. The dwelling would not be visible and would be an eco-development.

The final speaker was the applicant and he made the following comments:

• He has a strong local connection with a thriving market garden business and his children attend the local school.
• The apple orchard would not exist if it wasn’t for his stewardship.
• The land is much more biodiverse than the adjoining farmland.
• The proposal meets all the criteria of DP24.
• There is full support from the Parish Council.

In the discussion which followed the following comments were made by Members:

• This is a sustainable, low impact development which a short, safe walk to school and is not disassociated from the settlement. There would be no increase in traffic.
• It is in a tucked away position, with no visual impact, no views spoiled and no harm identified.
• Although the design is not the same as the cottages within the village, it is single storey and sits comfortably in the landscape.
• The benefits of this property outweigh the harms.
• Is there a way to ensure that the house remains affordable in the future?

In response to questions raised, Planning Officers advised that when considering the application against DP24 there would be a need for a S106 agreement which would cover the future occupancy. However, if Members considered the location to be sustainable, then the application could be considered using the tilted balance and a S106 would not be required. The Legal Advisor confirmed that Members could approve the application as a sustainable development, with a low impact design and no visual impact. Conditions should be delegated to Officers in conjunction with the Chair, Vice-Chair and division Members.

It was proposed by Councillor Adam Boyden and seconded by Councillor Dawn Denton to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/2509/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the proposal represented a sustainable development, with a low impact design, no harm to the visual amenity and no harmful impact on the rural character of the area and wider landscape. That delegated authority be given to Officers to impose necessary planning conditions, to be agreed in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and division Members.

Votes – Unanimous