Agenda item

Refusal

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report by remote link and recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.

Public Speaker

Guy McNamara (supporting)

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, stated that whilst he understood the Officer’s arguments and conclusion, he considered that there was an alternative balance in favour of the proposal.  Although in the Countryside, this was an infill plot in terms of the overall site.  The current office and storage uses already generated vehicle movements and human activity.  He considered that the land currently used for storage could become a garden area and provide benefits for wildlife and biodiversity.  He considered that the extant permission, if implemented, would result in development that would not sit well in its surroundings or in the context of the location.  He referred to the Conservation and Design Team’s view that the current proposal did no harm, and to the amount of local support for the proposal.  With the exception of Policies SS1 and SS2, all other policies had been satisfied.  He considered that the proposed development complied with NPPF paragraph 78 as the site was located in a group of settlements with a range of facilities.  He considered that the proposal would be a significant enhancement of the site in accordance with NPPF paragraph 79.  Whilst Policies SS1 and SS2 were good strategies to protect the Countryside, they did not fit all circumstances and in this case he considered that it would be sensible to acknowledge local opinion.  This was an infill proposal within a built compound of development on land that had an extant planning permission.  He considered that the proposed dwelling was well designed, appropriate for the space and would be a visual enhancement with improved wildlife capacity and potentially fewer traffic movements.  He requested that the Committee reconsider the balance in this case.

At the request of the Chairman, the Assistant Director for Planning reiterated the main points of the Development Management Team Leader’s presentation as the sound had been slightly muffled on the video link.

Councillor N Pearce considered that this was a good scheme that would be of economic benefit and enhance the existing development.  He considered that the potential harm would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and the application should be approved. 

Councillor P Heinrich accepted that there were arguments in favour of the proposal in that it would complete the development and replace the storage yard, but it was in a very isolated location and the facilities in adjacent villages were not within sensible walking distance.  The former barns and other farm buildings had been converted under different regulations.  He referred to a recent application for barn conversions on a site where there had been a house and considered that it did not set a precedent for the replacement of a portable building.  Although he considered that the proposed house was well designed, it was a market dwelling and not a local exceptions proposal.  The Committee had always attempted to uphold Policies SS1 and SS2 and he therefore reluctantly proposed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

The Principal Lawyer reminded the Committee that it was necessary to make its decision in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicated otherwise.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that the proposal would clearly generate additional traffic movements.  It was in a Countryside location and would contravene the Council’s Countryside policies.  There was no mitigation for climate change in terms of electric vehicles, charging points, renewable energy or sustainable heating.  He considered that there were insufficient material reasons to outweigh the Officer’s recommendation.   He seconded the proposal to refuse this application.

Councillor R Kershaw did not consider this to be a brownfield site.  He referred to a recent refusal of an application for a new dwelling in the Countryside on the site of a demolished farmhouse, which had a railway station and pub nearby.  The current proposal would be a building in the Countryside and he considered that it would be unwise to break the strategy in this particular case.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett endorsed Councillor Lloyd’s comments.  She stated that climate change was an issue and additional vehicle movements had to be prevented where possible. 

The Chairman stated that barn conversions were covered by a different classification and legislation to this application.  The conversion of the existing portable building on the site could take place under the extant planning approval.

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 1 abstention

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