Agenda item

Refusal.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speakers

Mo Anderson-Dungar (Colby and Banningham Parish Council)

Paul Harris (supporting)

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council had considered this application thoroughly and had concluded that it was a good scheme for the area.  Although he valued and supported the Council’s policies, he considered that the NPPF was also a material consideration in this case and referred specifically to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 relating to sustainable development, in addition to paragraphs 78 and 79 relating to rural housing.  He stated that this proposal was considered locally to be an opportunity for the area.  Mill Road had a range of architecture along it.  The proposal would add 6 journeys per day, and he considered that the Highway Authority should address the issue with the junction if it was considered to be a problem.  He asked the Committee to consider if the NPPF and local opinion should weigh more in support of this application than the Local Plan policies.

Councillor N Pearce stated that he supported the views of the Parish Council and local Member, and considered that this was a good application.  He referred to the slide presentation, which showed that there were other two-storey buildings in the locality and the site was an infill with dwellings either side.  He considered that the building would be hidden by landscaping.  The site was currently untidy and unkempt.  He considered that the proposal would bring a young family into the village.  He did not support the Officer’s recommendation as he believed this was an infill development and therefore not in the countryside.

Councillor A Brown referred to the Parish Council’s opinion that the proposed dwelling would provide a starter home.  However, the dwelling would be a four bedroomed property and Policies SS1 and SS2 only supported development in the Countryside if the properties were affordable.  He was concerned that the design of the property was quite intensive as an infill property in this particular location.  He referred to Councillor Pearce’s comment that the proposal would attract a family, and considered that there would be a benefit to the local school in terms of pupil numbers.  He requested clarification as to whether or not additional pupil numbers was considered socially sustainable in terms of paragraphs 78 and 79 of the NPPF.

The Assistant Director of Planning explained that development should meet all the criteria to be considered sustainable, otherwise it was a departure from the NPPF and Local Plan policy.  Detailed consultation had been undertaken with the Local Education Authority when drawing up the Local Plan.  He stated that Local Plan policies SS1 and SS2 were hierarchical policies and were reflective of where there was believed to be demand for educational services and where they could be sustainably supported.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he had some sympathy with the Parish Council’s views.  However, this Council had longstanding policies regarding development within generally unsustainable rural areas unless there were very exceptional circumstances or it related to social housing.  He considered that the Officer’s report was well argued.  Although the site was not isolated, it was within the Countryside in a small hamlet, with no services that could be accessed sensibly by foot.  He considered that the junction was dangerous and understood the Highway Authority’s objection to any more traffic coming out of it.  He considered that the design of the building did not fit in with the general nature of buildings in the area.  He proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

Councillor C Cushing stated that he was always very conflicted in respect of infill proposals.  He found it difficult to follow the argument that this proposal was not sustainable, and referred to precedents where infill proposals had been approved.  Given the number of dwellings already along the road, he considered that two more vehicles were unlikely to cause major issues, and agreed with the view that the Highway Authority should address existing issues.  He took the point regarding the size of the proposed dwelling, but in his opinion infills should be considered, as supported by EN2.

It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, seconded by Councillor R Kershaw and

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Planning.