Agenda item

Full Application - Erection of local needs dwelling at land at Chapel Farm, Heathcote - (NP/DDD/DDD/0121/0083, MN)



The report was introduced by the Planning Officer who confirmed that revised plans for a two bedroom property and information relating to suitability for affordable housing had been received the day before the committee meeting.  Neither late submission changed the reason for refusal which was based on the suitability of Heathcote for new housing as it had not been identified as a main settlement.  As the applicant did qualify for affordable housing, Hartington would be a more suitable location.


The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme, the speakers shared the allotted three minutes:


·         Mr Joe Oldfield – Agent

·         Mr Jack Fletcher – Applicant


The Planning Officer confirmed that the amended plans received the day before the Committee meeting were not available for Members to view due to timing.  But the overriding issue was the location which still the main issue for refusal.


Members queried if an exception could be made to approve the application in a small village as the site was suitable for development and also asked if the development was for agricultural need.


A proposal to approve the application contrary to Officer recommendation was moved and seconded.


The Head of Planning confirmed Policy DS1 is not arbitrary and allows the assessment of what is a sustainable settlement by virtue of its capacity to accommodate development without harming the valued character of the National Park and by having a range of services which support the community and reduce the need to travel. Members would need to consider the impact of development in a farming hamlet upon this aspect of development plan using the referral  mechanism set out in  paragraph 1.48 of Standing Orders. This would allow Members to consider any strong reasons to make  an exception to strategic Policy DS1. 


It was noted that Members were minded to approve the application but with a report back to a subsequent Committee with the revised plans and information on implications for Policy DS1.


The Chair of the Committee confirmed with the Members who had moved and seconded approval of the application that they were happy with the revised recommendation and this was confirmed.


The motion for approval as a departure from policies was moved and seconded.  It was noted that in accordance with Standing Order 1.48 that if the motion for approval was carried a further report would be made to a future Committee meeting.  The report would include more information relating to the revised plans and the information regarding suitability for affordable housing  in a settlement not identified in the development plan.




That Members are minded to recommend approval of the application as an

exception to Policy DS1 to a future meeting of the Planning Committee however in accordance with Standing Order 1.48 final determination of the application is DEFERRED pending a further report being prepared by Officers.


Supporting documents: