Agenda item

Cllr J Wharmby who was observing the meeting left prior to discussion of this item.

A revised copy of the report which contained as an Appendix, the original report considered by Members at a previous Planning Committee was introduced by the Head of Planning. The application had previously been considered at the Planning Committee on the 11^th June at which Members had indicated that they were minded to approve the application contrary to the Officer recommendation and as a significant departure from policies.  As such, under standing orders it was necessary to return to Planning Committee to explore the issues raised by the proposed decision.

The Head of Planning explained that it had  in the past been the process for reports of this nature to be presented to a full Authority Meeting but changes approved by Members had taken place to Standing Orders and it was now the responsibility of the Planning Committee to explore the impact of the decision to approve the application on the Authority’s Policies.

The Head of Planning noted that there were not significant, exceptional circumstances which would warrant the approval of an application contrary to strategic policy DS1.

A motion to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation was moved, seconded, voted on and lost.

A motion to approve the application contrary to Officer recommendation and Policy and subject to conditions including a S106 agreement relating to local occupancy and affordability was moved and seconded.

The Planning officer suggested that conditions should include:

1.    2 Year time limit

2.    In accordance with agreed plans

3.    Landscaping

4.    Design Details

It was agreed that the full list of conditions would be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee.

The Chair of the Committee requested that Members provide details of the material considerations which outweighed policy DS1 in this particular case.

Members suggested that agricultural need could be considered but Officers confirmed that the application was not for a farm worker’s dwelling and that matter therefore carried little weight.  A farm worker’s dwelling would be a materially different development so would have needed to be considered under a different planning application. Therefore Members considered that in the particular local circumstances, of this application the unmet need for a new affordable home, both now and for future generations which to a small but not insignificant  extent, helps local farming communities remain vibrant and thriving and further helps prevent the involuntary drift of local people out of a community, and helps families to stay together.

The motion to approve the application subject to a S.106 agreement relating to local occupancy and affordability and with conditions delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, contrary to Officer recommendation and to Policy DS1 was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to  a S.106 agreement relating to local occupancy and affordability with conditions delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, contrary to Officer recommendation and Policy DS1.

Because the particular local circumstances of this application, the unmet need for a new affordable home, both now and for future generations which to a small but not insignificant extent, helps local farming communities remain vibrant and thriving and further helps prevent the involuntary drift of local people out of a community, and helps families to stay together comprised material considerations which outweighed policy DS1 in this particular case.