The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (SE) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 76857.

Graham Townsend (Planning agent – supporter), Oliver Perrin (objector), James Bradley (objector), Jemma Grigg (applicant) and Matt Steart (agent) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read a statement on behalf of Liz Lillicrap (objector) to the Committee.

In response to comments made, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       In accordance with section 36 of the Planning Act, all planning applications  should be determined in accordance with the Planning Acts and also in accordance with the development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

·       An interpretation of principal built form relating to Patchole was referenced in the Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision of 2022.

·       The principle consideration in relation to this application was the tenure of development and whether the site was within the principal built form or well related to the settlement.

·       The Planning Policy Officer, who had been involved in the preparation of the Local Plan, was present at the meeting, to answer any questions in relation to the interpretation of the principal built form.

·       If the Committee were minded to approve the application, there was a need to evidence the reasons for going against the officer recommendation.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       The National Design Guide was a material consideration and was required to be considered as part of the balance of weighting of the whole application. 

·       In accordance with Planning law, all applications were required to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The Development Plan was sound as it had been tested.

·       The interpretation of policy for each settlement under Policy DM23  would be different depending on the physical circumstances of the particular settlement.

·       Approval of this application could set a precedent although future applications would be determined on their merits and facts.

·       The Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision of 2022 sets out a view as to where the principal built form is located in Patchhole.

·       In accordance with Policy DM23 of the Local Plan, defining the principal built form of a settlement would be a question of application of the accepted principle based on the physical layout of the settlement and its relationship to a development site.

·       There was a housing crisis and officers consider that this site should support the provision of affordable housing as it wasn’t considered to be part of the principal built form but could be considered to be well related to the settlement.

·       It was considered that the property located at the North East was outside of the built form.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (SE) advised the following:

·       The ownership and use of the land adjacent to the listed barns was unknown to Officers at the time of the Committee meeting. The curtilage of the site was a separate matter.  In his opinion, the area referred to may be or formerly used for car parking. It was not part of the calculation for the built form. The principle consideration in relation to this application was it was not within the principal built form.

·       Identified the location of the property on the north east of the site on the plan.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Policy Officer (MA) advised the following:

·       The principal built form was not identified in the Local Plan, but was included within supplementary documents.

·       The FAQ’s to the Local Plan and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document seek to provide additional support to define principal built form of a settlement which states. “The principal built form is not considered to include the following: any agricultural buildings, associated yards and built farm complexes; any greenfield land on the edge of the settlement; any curtilage of properties that are considered to extend unduly into the countryside; and any buildings or other developed land that are sporadic, disconnected or remote from the main cluster(s) of buildings, their associated curtilage or other developed land.”

·       Appeal dismissed in Patchole on land adjacent The Stables (72698) where the Inspector recognised that “the village of Kentisbury comprises dispersed clusters of built form, predominately focussed along the key roads in the area. In Patchole, the principal built form is clustered around the junction between Ley Lane and Ford Hill/Stonecombe Hill, with properties primarily fronting these roads”.

·       The property located at the north east of the plan was not considered to be part of the built form.

·       In terms of the national policy, the property located in the north east wouldn’t be considered as remote. It was not part of the principal built form in accordance with the Local Plan.  The site was considered to be well related.  If the tenure was for affordable housing, the proposal would be considered to be acceptable.

Councillor Prowse addressed the Committee as he was the Ward Member.

The Chair outlined the steps to be followed in accordance with the Planning Code of Conduct, Paragraph 9, Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution as follows:

 “9.4 Where a councillor wishes to move or moves a motion which differs from the officer’s recommendation consideration should be given to adjourning the committee meeting for a few minutes for the reasons for such a motion to be discussed.

9.5 The officer should be given an opportunity to explain the implications of any contrary decision, including an assessment of a likely appeal outcome based on policies set out in the development plan and the NPPF, and chances of a successful award of costs against the local authority, should one be made.

9.6 Where there is concern about the validity of reasons, consideration should be given to deferring to another meeting to have the reasons tested and discussed.

9.7 If the planning committee makes a decision contrary to an officer’s

recommendation (whether for approval or refusal or changes to conditions or section 106 planning obligations) then a detailed minute of the committee’s reasons, which should set in the context of the development plan or the NPPF, should be made and a copy placed on the application file.”

RESOLVED, following the moving and seconding of a motion to approve the application as the proposal was in the Committee’s opinion within the principal built form of Patchole and therefore compliant with Policies ST19 and DM23 of the Local Plan and the location of the property in the north east was considered to be within the principal built form, which differed from the Planning Officer’s recommendation, that in accordance with paragraph 9.4 of the Planning Code of Conduct the meeting be adjourned at 11.03 a.m., for the reasons for such a motion to be discussed with the mover and seconder of the motion and officers.

RESOLVED that it being 12.17 p.m. that the meeting be reconvened.

In accordance with paragraph 9.5 of the Planning Code of Conduct, the Chair provided the Planning officer with the opportunity to explain the implications of any contrary decision.

The Service Manager (Development Management) advised that the Committee had the right to go against Officer recommendations. The reasons for the Officer recommendations were clearly outlined in the committee report. If the Committee was minded to take a decision that was contrary to the Officer recommendation, then there needed to be adequate reasons provided for going against Policy DM 23 (1) (a), Planning Policies, other material considerations and the Local Plan as a whole.

In accordance with paragraph 9.7 of the Planning Code of Conduct, the Chair invited the mover of the motion, Councillor Walker, to address the Committee.

Councillor Walker advised the Committee that there had been a thorough discussion for the reasons for the motion and then asked the Senior Corporate and Community Services to read the reasons to the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read the motion and reasons to the Committee.

RESOLVED (6 for, 4 against, 0 abstained) that the application be APPROVED subject to the Service Manager (Development Management) being delegated power to attach the associated planning conditions.

REASONS

Having carried out a site inspection, the Committee finds that the proposal for an open market dwelling in this location is acceptable and in accordance with Policy DM23 (1) (a) of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan with reference to the following material considerations:

(a)  Planning Inspectorate Appeal 2022 reference (APP/X1118/W/21/3288689) states that “the principal built form is clustered around the junction between Ley Lane and Ford Lane/Stonecombe Hill with properties primarily fronting these roads” and that the Committee viewed the triangulation of the two storey dwelling to the North East (property known as Roseley);

(b)  That the officers significant weighting of the previous planning decision 66536 on the site is given less weight due to the findings of what principal built form can consist of as referenced in the Planning Inspectorate Appeal 2022 reference (APP/X1118/W/21/3288689);

(c)  That the officers significant weighting of the previous planning decision 59968 is given less weight as it was determined under a previous Local Plan and no longer forms part of the Development Plan for North Devon;

(d)  Consider the proposal is in accordance with Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework, supporting a prosperous rural economy, which states “the use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist”;

(e)  Whilst the objections for the application received have been noted by the Committee, the proposed development is therefore in accordance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.