Agenda item

The Chair and Vice Chair of Committee had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report outlining the main issues regarding the location outside the boundary of the village and the policy issue and confirmed that the design conformed to local needs guidance.

The applicant had not gone through the process to confirm he was eligible for local needs housing although he lived locally with his parents but points 1 and 2 of the report were sufficient to refuse the application even if housing need had been identified.

The Officer clarified that Home Options was a service provided by Derbyshire Dales District Council which assessed applicants suitability for local needs housing and the type of housing they would be suitable for, e.g. number of bedrooms.  The Authority used this expertise when making decisions on affordable homes eligibility. Using Home Options was not obligatory but applicants still needed to demonstrate that they were eligible for affordable housing when applying to build this type of home.

Members noted that the Parish Council supported the application but questioned why Officers had not requested a sustainability report on the building or pursued information on eligibility. The Officer confirmed that it was felt that refusal on the grounds of location of the site were sufficient to refuse the application. The Officer also confirmed that the application was not for a dwelling for a farm worker and would not be tied to the farm but that a new application for a tied, farm worker home would be considered.

The Head of Planning recommended that the application be refused on this occasion and that Officers work with the applicant on a new application for a farm workers home including sustainability report in line with policy CC1 and evidence of entitlement to affordable housing. 

A proposal to defer the application was moved and seconded.

Officers confirmed that a new application would be needed rather than defer the current application as the new application would be materially different.  The current application would need to be withdrawn and the applicant would need to complete an agricultural appraisal to show the financial and functional tests set out in policy can be met.

The motion to defer the application was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be DEFERRED for further discussion between the Officers and applicant.