Erection of open market dwelling. Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached).

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

Jemma Grigg (applicant), Matt Steart (agent) and James Bradley (agent) addressed the Committee.

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

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

·       The frequently asked questions within the Local Plan included that in relation to principle built form to not include any greenfield plans to the edge of the development.

·       Planning Policy team supported the planning officer’s interpretation of Policy DM23 in that the proposed site was not within the principle built form of Patchole it was “well related” to the settlement.

·       Open space was located between the site and the land beneath the site.

·       A listed building was located to the north of Ley Lane.

·       He would describe built form ending at the boundary east of Lower Base Park.

·       The measurements and massing for the proposed dwellinghouse were detailed on page 19 of the report and was to have a width of 13.4m and a four bedroomed property.  The percentage of the garage space had not been calculated.

·       A development boundary had not been identified for Patchole, which therefore made planning form difficult.

·       Identified the location of the appeal site at land adjacent to The Stables in Patchole.  At the time of the appeal, the Local Planning Authority did not have a five year housing land supply and the Inspectorate argued that it was considered to within the built form of the village and supported policy DM23.

·       Ley Lane elevated to the north and the landscape south/south east of the site dropped down.

Councillor Prowse (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

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

·       Policy DM23 was open to interpretation.

·       The Council would be starting to look at developing a new Local Plan and would be working with Parish and Town Councils in relation the policies.

·       Has some concerns approving this application against the officer’s recommendation.

·       Reference to the Planning Policy team’s consultation response which stated “I would suggest that if a development boundary were to be identified around the principle built form of Patchole then clearly, it would not include the land proposed but it would certainly adjoin the eastern boundary and therefore well related ……”

·       It was considered to be contrary to policies ST01, ST19 and DM23 of the Local Plan. In accordance with Paragraph 13.130 supporting text of the Local Plan it was clear that the proposed site would not constitute an infill site.

·       The proposed dwelling by reasons of its size, scale and siting would not respond well to the open character of the site and sensitive to the rural nature.

·       If the proposed dwelling was located further east on the site, it could be considered to be less related to the built form.

In response to questions, the Lead Planning Officer (North) advised the following:

·       The frequently asked questions in relation to the Local Plan advised that an open market dwelling needed to be within the principle built form.  He read out the wording to the Committee. This document had been written by officers after the Local Plan had been adopted.

RESOLVED (9 for, 0 against, 0 abstained) that the DECISION FOR APPROVAL BE DELEGATED to the Service Manager (Development Management) in consultation with the Ward Member to negotiate changes to the application in terms of the scale, size and location of the dwelling and that if there was disagreement that the application be presented to the Committee for consideration as the Committee accepted the principle that it was within the built form in accordance with Policy DM23.

Councillor Bishop was unable to vote in accordance with Part 3, Annexe 1, Paragraph 3 as he had left the meeting during the consideration of this application.