Agenda item

Report by the Head of Place (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously).

Chris Spear (Chair of Marwood Parish Council), Graham Townsend (planning consultant), Matt Steart (agent), and Dr Sam Cockburn (applicant) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent confirmed that:

·         access to the site via the lower road had been considered.  That road was privately owned and the owner had been approached but refused to give permission for its use. 

·         The triangular area of land at the side of the entrance to the site access (the ‘top’ road) was owned by the applicant’s family.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (MB) advised the Committee that:

·         In relation to planning policy, and the Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP), the area of Blakewell did not form a ‘cluster’ and as per paragraph 4.1.6 of the plan, the dwelling was not adjoining a rural settlement and therefore the application could not be supported.

·         The JLDP would allow for an extension to an existing dwelling in this location.

·         The building marked on the plans to the left of the proposed dwelling was, in fact, a garden structure, rather than another dwelling.

·         Blakewell was not deemed to be a rural settlement under the JLDP as it did not contain at least one prescribed service or community facility from the following list as set out in paragraph 4.15 of the JLDP: community/village hall, post office, public house, convenience shop, place of worship, sports playing field or primary school.  The facilities at the nearby Blakewell Fishery, which included an onsite café, did not meet this criteria. 

·         A Fishing lake was not counted as a sports field.

·         The number of traffic accidents that had occurred at the junction with the B3230 was unknown.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Head of Place advised that the existing policy was in place as per the JLDP which had been subject to extensive consultation prior to adoption.  It had been adopted and could be reviewed in future but as yet no timetable had been set.  The JLDP Working Group was currently working on a timetable for the areas of revision required within the JLDP which would be available within the next few weeks. Any such review would take approximately two years.

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Solicitor (DH) re-iterated that the lake and café at Blakewell Fishery do not constitute a prescribed service or community facility as set out in paragraph 4.15 of the JLDP and that if the Committee sought to approve the application on the basis that they do constitute such a prescribed service or community facility then their decision would be open to challenge.

Councillor Prowse declared a personal interest as he knew some of the applicant’s family.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (MB) reconfirmed that Devon County Council (DCC) Highways had objected to the increased use of the junction on to the B3230 and the limited visibility of the junction. He also read the paragraph relating to ‘rural settlements’ in the Joint LDP to the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Head of Place explained that although it may be possible for a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to be developed by the Joint Local Development Plan Working Group to reconsider the list of prescribed services or community facilities to include in paragraph 4.15 of the JLDP, it should be noted that the Officers had an extensive work load already and that other work could take priority over the creation of the SPD.

RESOLVED (9 for, 3 against, 1 abstained) that the application be DEFERRED for a period of four months pending receipt of the following information:

(a)  confirmation of Devon County Council’s highways stance on the proposal;

(b)  information regarding whether the negative impact on the landscape can be resolved;

(c)  receipt of an ecology report;

(d)  clarification of reasons why ‘key workers’ have been excluded from the current Local Plan;

(e)  update on the timetable for the production and adoption of a Supplementary Planning Document in relation to Rural Settlements.