Agenda item

Conditional approval

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report.  For avoidance of doubt, he explained that the soft landscaping plan included in the presentation pack sent to the Committee showed the footprint of the previously proposed dwelling and not the current proposal.  He recommended the refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speakers

Pennie Alford (Binham Parish Council)

Tom Cobbold (supporting)

Councillor R Kershaw, the local Member, stated that this was a finely balanced application.  He referred to the history of the proposal and the work that the applicant had done in consultation with the Conservation and Design Team in respect of the heritage concerns, which, whilst they remained, were not as strong as previously expressed.  The design had addressed concerns regarding light spill by the reduction of the amount of glazing and use of louvres.  He stated that this was a modest, one bedroomed, thoughtfully designed dwelling which reused older materials and was set behind a row of houses of no particular historic or architectural merit.  He could not see how this proposal would affect the dark skies area, or how the replacement of six unsightly garages would cause harm.  The proposal was supported by the Parish Council and there had been no local objections.  He considered that the applicant had tried to comply with requests by Officers, the building would not be harmful to the location, and he did not consider it to be a backland development.  He stated that he would vote against the Officer recommendation and requested that Officers re-engage with the applicant to resolve the matter.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle agreed with the local Member’s comments.  He considered that it should be borne in mind that car use had reduced due to the pandemic and many people were now driving electric vehicles.

Councillor A Brown considered that the Parish Council and local Member had put forward a good case to support this application.  He questioned the definition of Countryside, and stated that from the aerial photograph it was clear this site fell within the village settlement.  The site was brownfield in nature and the development would be an infill.  He stated that proposals for dwellings that were not in keeping with immediately adjacent buildings had been approved in the past and he questioned the validity of the argument on that point.  For those reasons he recommended the approval of this application. 

Councillor P Heinrich stated that this was backland development on the rural edge of the village, but the building would significantly improve the landscape given that it would be of higher quality than surrounding development.  There was an argument that it was effectively a new development that was not on the footprint of existing development, but the Parish Council was in favour and taking on board Councillor Kershaw’s comments, he considered that the balance was in favour of approval.

Councillor C Cushing considered that the site was not in the countryside in his opinion.  He took on board a comment by the applicant that there would be some economic benefit to the area and on that basis he would vote against the Officer’s recommendation.

The Assistant Director for Planning advised the Committee on matters of sustainability in policy terms and requested that Members be guided by their training, previous decisions and the Council’s success in defending appeals on sustainability grounds.  The pandemic did not change the terms of the sustainability analysis in the current Local Plan.  The site was classed as Countryside, which was defined in planning terms in the Local Plan.  The application had been assessed against the Council’s historic Local Plan, which remained relevant at the present time, and the emerging Local Plan carried limited, if any, weight at this stage.

The Development Management Team Leader informed the Committee that the application form stated that the proposed development was a new dwelling.  The Design and Access Statement referred to it as holiday accommodation.  The applicant had clearly said in his statement to the Committee that the proposed dwelling was for holiday accommodation and therefore the application should be considered against policy EC7 relating to the location of new tourism development.  Under this policy, proposals for new build unserviced holiday accommodation in the Countryside should be treated as permanent residential development, which would not be permitted.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett proposed the refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor P Fisher.

The Chairman urged caution against any departure from the Local Plan policies SS1 and SS2.

Councillor R Kershaw pointed out for the sake of balance that earlier in the meeting the Committee had approved a large site that had been recommended for approval against policy by Officers.

The Chairman clarified that the application referred to by Councillor Kershaw had been approved as it was an exceptions site.  It would not have been accepted for market housing or holiday accommodation.

The proposal for refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation was put to the vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 10 against.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee and answered Members’ questions in respect of the options for determination of this application.

Councillor N Lloyd asked if any weight could be attached to brownfield land as the site had been previously built upon.

The Assistant Director for Planning explained that Members had indicated the view that the site was previously developed land, which gave a positive potential weight to the proposal but did not automatically mean it should be approved.  The Committee should also consider the suggestion made earlier in the meeting that local services were available and that there were local facilities that would support a tourism use on the site.  It would be necessary to amend the application description to a tourism proposal as it was clearly the concept of this development.  As such, it would be necessary to consider whether or not the proposal was acceptable in terms of its accessibility to services and facilities and to tourism attractions, in conjunction with its previously developed status, appropriateness of the design and impact on landscape and dark skies.

Councillor C Stockton proposed that the application be approved on the basis that the proposal was for tourist accommodation, facilities existed in Binham and the site had been previously developed.

The Assistant Director of Planning stated that it was important to clarify that the change of description was acceptable to the applicant.  Officers would draft suitable conditions for circulation to the applicant to include a restriction of the use to holiday accommodation, drainage, highways, parking, landscaping and shielding in terms of the dark skies issues.

Councillor A Brown seconded the proposal to approve this application.

Councillor N Lloyd requested that conditions relating to renewable energy and heating and high standards of insulation be included.

At the request of the Chairman, Mr Cobbold confirmed that he was content with the change of description and restriction to holiday use.

It was proposed by Councillor C Stockton, seconded by Councillor A Brown and

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention

That this application be approved subject to amendment of the application description to reflect the proposed holiday use, and the imposition of conditions to include a holiday use restriction, drainage, highways, parking, landscaping, protection of dark skies, use of green technology and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Assistant Director for Planning.

Reason: The Committee considers that the approval of this application is justified on the grounds that it relates to tourist accommodation, there are facilities in Binham and the site had been previously developed.