Erection of open market dwelling (amended size, scale, siting and design) - amended description & plans. Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached).

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

The Senior Planning Officer (SE) advised the Committee of a typographical error on page 19 of the agenda, fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page, whereby the reference to paragraph numbers were incorrect and should have stated “paragraphs 7.35 and 7.36” and not “paragraphs 3.35 and 3.36”.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out statements to the Committee on behalf of Liz Lillicrap (objector), Diana Simpson (objector) and Clive and Pauline Deen (objectors).

James Bradley (objector), Oliver Perrin (objector), Jemma Grigg (applicant) and Graham Townsend (agent) addressed the Committee.

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

·       The National Design Guide and National Planning Policy Framework sat alongside the Local Plan and did not outweigh the Local Plan.  In 2023, the Planning Advisory Service had tested the Local Plan and confirmed that it was still sound for decision making.  Therefore Policy DM23 was still sound.

·       The principle form was not defined in the Local Plan and was open to the decision makers judgement.  The site was not within the principle built form of the village, however, it was clear that the site was well related to as defined in the Local Plan and the affordable housing Supplementary Planning Document.  This matter of well related had also been considered by the Planning Inspectorate recently.

·       Further to the issuing of a Consent Order by the High Court of Justice allowing the judicial review which concluded that the decision of the Committee on 6 September 2023 be quashed, officers in consultation with Legal had taken the view that the application had to be re-considered as originally submitted.  Amended plans had been submitted on 30 January 2024 and therefore could not be considered as this was after application had been considered by the Committee and this decision, along with the amended plans were quashed as part of the Judicial Review.

·       The Judicial Review looked at the reasons and the policies that the Committee had considered as part of its decision making process and concluded that the decision should have, but failed, to give adequate reasons for its decision to grant planning permission contrary to Officer’s recommendation.  The Judicial Review looked at the process of decision making and not whether the decision was right or wrong.  As part of the decision making process, the Committee had not considered all of the policies that Officers had considered that the application was contrary to.

·       Policy ST19 Affordable Housing on Exception site looked to assist the rural housing crisis and support local needs.  However, this application was for a self build and open market dwelling.

·       This location did not trigger a local needs dwelling in accordance with Policy DM24.

·       The proposal would extend the settlement unduly into the countryside.

·       The second reason for refusal could not be removed as the decision was considered as a whole as part of the Judicial Review process.

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

·       Amended plans had been submitted on 30 January 2024.  He had followed the Committee’s decision on 6 September 2023 and discussions had taken place with the Ward Member.

·       No discussions had taken place with the applicant regarding a section 106 agreement to restrict the dwelling to affordable housing.

In response to questions raised by the Committee, the Solicitor and Data Protection Officer (CN) advised the following:

·       The Judicial Review process considered the process and procedure that was followed as part of the decision making process and whether it was lawful or not lawful, not the planning merits. There was a legitimate expectation for the public to know why the decision was taken together with full reasons. The Committee on 6 September 2023 had not considered all of the policies that Officers had recommended that the application was contrary to.

·       It was within the power of the Committee if it considered to go against an officer’s recommendation.  However, in order to protect the Council, the Committee should consider the following five points:

1.    Do the Committee agree that the proposal complies or conflicts with all relevant policies?  (Go through Officer Report and discuss relevant policies and whether they are in conflict or whether they comply)

2.    In light of that above, does the proposal put forward accord with the policies of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, when read as a whole? (How many conflict and how many comply?)

3.    What are the other material considerations which are judged to weigh a) in favour of, or b) against, the grant of Planning Permission and their effect on the overall planning balance?

4.    Provide reasons why the Councillors disagree with the Officers recommendation/conclusion in respect of each policy (with reference to relevant considerations as included in the Officers Report, to include any relevant previous decision including those at appeal)

5.    Are there any other reasons why Councillors disagree, more generally with the Officers recommendation?

·       These points could be circulated to the Committee for reference.

·       She read out the decision made by the Committee at its meeting held on 6 September 2023, which was detailed on page 11 of the agenda.

·       Affordable housing would secure a dwelling for: shared ownership accommodation; discounted sale price; or for a Regulatory Provider for social rent or such other examples.  Affordable housing was sought for larger schemes whereby a percentage of affordable housing was secured.  The purpose of affordable housing was for those who could not afford to buy housing on the open market.  It also provided protection in the future that the dwelling could only be occupied by someone who met the affordable housing criteria.  The applicant would have to agree to the dwelling to be only used for affordable housing needs, therefore the applicant would not be able to live in the dwelling.

·       The Consent Order issued by the High Court of Justice quashed the decision made by the Committee on 6 September 2023, therefore the status of the application reverted back to prior to this meeting.

·       An amended plan could be submitted up until the point where the decision was taken.

·       If the current application was withdrawn by the applicant, then officers would have delegated powers to determine the new application unless it was called in by a Councillor for consideration by the Committee.

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

RESOLVED (10 for, 0 against, 3 abstained) that the application be DEFERRED for up to 3 months pending a site inspection to be undertaken by the Committee to look at the principle of the built form.