Agenda item

This application was originally considered at the meeting of the Authority’s Planning Committee on 10 April 2026.  At this meeting the application was recommended for refusal but Members were minded to approve.  The Authority’s Standing Orders (Section1.48) state that where a Committee is proposing to make a decision which would be a departure from policy and/or the Officer recommendation, final determination shall be referred until the next meeting.  The Development and Enforcement Manager authorised such a referral in order that the Planning Committee can consider a further paper to explore the policy implications and risks. 

The Senior Policy Planner presented the report which set out the implications and risks and gave a recap of the application and the reasons for the application. 

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

•          Mr David Jenner – Applicant

Janet Dugdale arrived at 10:12am

Some Members had visited the site in April 2026.

Members discussed the following points:

The Authority Solicitor asked that all those Members absent from the previous Planning Committee meeting in April 2026 confirm that they had read all the documents associated with this application prior to taking part in the discussion. If Members had read all the documents, then they would be able to participate in the vote.  The Head of Planning also re-presented the slides from the first meeting in order to familiarize all members with the nature of the site and the physical proposals.

•          Clarification was provided regarding the definition of “affordable housing” and how it has been assessed.  The main basis for the argument against approving the application is that the applicant does not have a local need for affordable housing.

•          The medical need element to the policy was discussed. 

•          The size of the proposed development was discussed. 

•          Whether the benefits of providing an affordable house in perpetuity outweigh the breaches of policy.

•          The provision of local housing stock and the suitability of the houses for down-sizing in the local area.

•          It was noted that the planning policies are set out to enable fairness and equity across society.

•          There was concern about the policy implications if this application was approved. The property is not a non-designated heritage asset but is a modern barn. 

•          It was clarified that the applicant is not in affordable housing need, every occupant afterwards would require a local connection in accordance with policy.

•          There was concern that should this application be approved, that other applicants would use a similar method in the future. It was agreed that there is a need to think through longer term implications of any decisions made.

A motion to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.       The proposed dwelling would not address a proven need for affordable housing and is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1.A and Development Management Policy DMH1.