Agenda item

DEFERRED

Members minded to approve. (Contrary to officer recommendation). Item to be referred back to a future planning committee to explore policy issues as approval would represent a departure from key aspects of the development plan.

Cllr D Chapman had declared a prejudicial interest for this item as the applicant was known to him, so left the meeting room and did not take part in any discussion.

The Chair and Vice Chair had visited the site the previous day.

The report was presented by the Head of Planning who outlined the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

The  following addressed the Committee under the Public Participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr Charles Woolley, Applicant

The Head of Planning was asked to clarify if the trees on the application site were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order and confirmed that he did not have that information to hand but could confirm that they were within the boundary of the Conservation Area.

Members discussed the size of the proposed property in relation to the needs of the applicant’s growing family and the location of the application site, being on the edge of the village, within the Conservation Area, and incurring into a medieval strip field.  Also whether there was a better site within the ownership of the applicant.  Additionally there was discussion of how best to address local housing need and the public benefit arising from this.

A scheme of archaeological investigation had not been carried out. It was noted that a driveway would be constructed through a sloping bank, the archaeological significance of which was currently not known.

The Head of Planning emphasised that the Conservation Area status of the site should not be ignored and it was necessary to make a balanced judgment weighing the benefits of approval of the application against the potential harm to the Conservation Area.  He also clarified that the National Floorspace Guidance within the relevant policy seeks to ensure homes are affordable over the long term.

A motion to approve the item contrary to Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded.

The Head of Planning requested that the item be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the committee under Standing Order 1.48, and a further report be prepared to reflect on the policy impact of the decision and to call on Members to consider strong reasons for making an exception to policy, reflecting also on similar recent cases at Planning Committee determined by Members in accordance with policy.

The following conditions were suggested by Officers in the event of approval of the application:

1.    2 year time limit

2.    Section 106 agreement relating to local occupancy

3.    In accordance with agreed plans

4.    Agreement to be reached on materials used

5.    Services to run underground over the applicant’s land

6.    In accordance with Highways recommendations

7.    Consideration of sewerage treatment

8.    A written scheme of archaeological investigation to be carried out.

9.    Detailed landscaping scheme

A vote to approve the application contrary to Officer recommendation was taken and carried.

RESOLVED

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