Erection of open market dwelling (amended size, scale, siting and design) (amended description & plans). Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached to item 6).

Councillor Davies advised that he would be restarting his recording of the meeting.

There were no questions raised by the Committee.

Following the moving and seconding of a motion to approve the application, 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.”

RESOLVED, following the moving and seconding of a motion to approve the application, 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 11.16 a.m., for the reasons for such a motion to be discussed with the mover and seconder of the motion, the Chair and officers.

RESOLVED that it being 11.41 a.m. that the meeting be reconvened.

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 read the reasons to the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer then read the motion and reasons to the Committee prior to the vote being taken and the Chair asked Councillor Walker if she agreed with those reasons as read out. Councillor Walker confirmed this.

The Service Manager (Development Management) requested that she be given delegated powers to attach the associated conditions.

RESOLVED (10 for, 2 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

(a)  The Committee takes into account the external legal advice and the officer’s report. 

(b)  The Committee were now looking at this application in a different way than the previous Committee did in November 2024 as we have new mandatory housing targets and therefore we recognise that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

(c)  In December 2024, the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework and as a result a material consideration is that the tilted balance is engaged in accordance with the paragraph 11 (d) (ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(d)  Because the policies in terms of housing supply are considered to be out of date tilting the balance between benefits and harm.

(e)  The application is in accordance with Policy ST01 as Patchole and  Kentisbury are in the Local Plan as a village which has an aspiration of community growth.

(f)    Therefore it is a sustainable development of an open market dwelling which tilts the balance in favour of approval.

(g)  As a result of the above, the Committee affords less weight to the environmental and social perspective in policy ST01 aswell as policies in ST19 and DM23.

(h)  The Committee increases weight given in producing another property for the vitality of the village.

(i)    Therefore, the Committee does consider that the benefits significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm when assessed against the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.