Agenda item

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and updated Members of a correction to the report at Paragraph 50 which should have said “daughter” not “daughters”.  He also went onto inform Members that a further representation had been received since the report had been submitted, which he then went onto summarise.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Mr John Imber, Agent

Members asked whether there were any proposals to supply affordable housing in Biggin, but the Head of Development Management reported that she was not aware of any.  That any designation in Neighbourhood Plans needed to reflect the National Park Authority’s policies and that provision of housing should be based on  a local needs assessment, and that need which was a continually evolving process.

A motion to grant permission for the erection of a local needs affordable dwelling was moved and seconded. The Head of Development Management stated that due to the potential departure from policy she would be envoking SO 1.48 if Members were minded to grant the application, requiring the item to be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee so that Officers could bring a report setting out the impact on policy of such a decision. The motion in principle was put to the vote and was not carried.

Members acknowledged that more affordable houses were needed, but they would have to be within a named settlement, not in open countryside unless it was an agricultural workers dwelling, as this would be contrary to Policy.

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

Cllr Kath Potter asked for her vote against the motion be recorded.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The provision of new building affordable housing in the open countryside is contrary to Development Plan policy LH1.

2.    It has not been demonstrated that the proposed housing would remain

affordable to those on low to moderate incomes in perpetuity, contrary to Development Plan policy LH1.

3.    The siting of the dwelling would overlook neighbouring properties, harming their amenity contrary to Development Plan policy LC4.

4.    The appearance of the dwelling would detract from the character and

appearance of the built environment contrary to Development Plan policy LC4.

5.    The site would not be served by a safe vehicular access, contrary to

Development Plan policy LT18.

6.    The application fails to provide sufficient information to enable its impacts on trees to be properly considered, contrary to Development Plan policy LC20.