Agenda item

Refusal

The Interim Development Manager presented the application.  He reported that an email had been received from the office of Jerome Mayhew MP referring to concerns raised by the occupants of Church Court. He advised the Committee that although the application was contrary to Local Plan policies SS1 and SS2, the fallback position in the event that planning permission for the current proposal was not granted was a material consideration in this case.  He stated that two additional slides showing the relationship of the application site to Church Court would be shown after the objector had spoken.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speaker

John Hirst (objecting)

Councillor V FitzPatrick, Ward Member, considered that this application was finely balanced.  He considered that the current proposal was preferable to the extant permission in terms of its contribution to the built environment and it would improve the character and amenity of the site.  Whilst the application was contrary to policy, he considered that other material considerations indicated that it should be approved.  He supported the officer’s recommendation.

The Interim Development Manager displayed slides demonstrating the relationship of the proposed dwellings which were closest to the neighbouring dwelling.  He referred to the floor plans which had been included in the presentation pack previously circulated to the Committee, and indicated the position of the windows and their relationship with the neighbouring dwelling.  He considered that any overshadowing would not be sufficiently significant to warrant refusal of this application.  He clarified that the extant permission related to conversion of the existing buildings and the external appearance was not known.  The current application related to new build dwellings.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett referred to similar applications which had been refused as they were outside the development boundary.  She did not consider that the current application was any different from those applications.

The Development Manager stated that each application should be considered on its own merits and she did not have the detail of the cases quoted by Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett to advise if a fallback situation had been in existence in those circumstances.  She advised Members to consider the weight that should be given to the fallback position in this case, and if it was considered that the weight was less than the report suggested, the Committee could overturn the recommendation on grounds that the proposed dwellings were new build in the Countryside and therefore contrary to policy.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee with regard to matters of balance and planning judgement in this case. 

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks requested clarification as to the sustainability of this location.  She considered that the proposal would generate at least 16 cars and that it was not possible to access services without a car.

The Interim Development Manager stated that whilst the site was not physically remote, it was remote from everyday basic facilities and services.  He understood that there were no facilities in Kettlestone, apart from the village hall, the nearest shop was in Little Snoring and the nearest principal settlement was Fakenham.  The proposal was therefore contrary to Policies SS1 and SS2.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle expressed concern at the apparent inconsistency in applying Policies SS1 and SS2.

The Head of Planning explained that the proposal was very much contrary to the locational policies SS1 and SS2, which were greatly respected and given much weight.  However, in this case it was considered that exceptional circumstances prevailed.  Residential development would take place on the site in any case and the recommendation would be different if there was any doubt that that the extant permission could be delivered.  The prior notification process had established the principle of residential development on this site irrespective of its remoteness from services and facilities.  It was a difficult decision for Members to make but it was a matter of balance and judgement as to the weighting of the issues in this case.

Councillor P Heinrich considered that the existing barns were not ideal and that the current proposal offered good quality housing.  It was inevitable that the site would be used for housing, and although the proposed development was a clear breach of policy, he reluctantly proposed the officer’s recommendation to approve this application.

Councillor C Cushing considered that the conversion of the barns would not look appealing and he reluctantly seconded the proposal.

Councillor A Varley requested clarification of the sustainability issues.

The Head of Planning explained that this proposal was not a question of sustainability.  It would not meet the sustainability criteria but there were other considerations in this case that had been accepted through the prior notification process where policies were not considered.

Councillor N Lloyd expressed concern that the report lacked details in respect of ecology, environment and climate change and he could not support the application on that basis.

Councillor Varley supported Councillor Lloyd’s view that the report contained insufficient detail.

The Head of Planning explained that sustainability of the build was a matter for consideration under the Building Regulations.  There was no clear commitment for this development to deliver beyond the required standards.

Councillor R Kershaw considered that the Council should be moving towards green building and sustainability and begin to apply such conditions on building as the Local Plan moved forward.

The Chairman asked if it was possible to apply sustainability conditions on this application.

The Head of Planning explained that green building was not a case of adding sustainable design conditions at a later stage.  He considered that adding such conditions in this case would be difficult to enforce and may stretch the bounds of reasonableness.

The proposal to approve this application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning was put to the vote and lost with 5 Members voting in favour, 7 against with 1 abstention.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Councillor N Lloyd and

RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions

That this application be refused on the grounds that the fallback position is undeliverable, there is no security in respect of green build issues that are part of the Local Plan, and the location is unsustainable.