Apologies were received from Councillors Hunt, Johnson and Stone.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

None.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Swinglehurst declared an other declarable interest because she knew one of the objectors.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2020.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson confirmed that application 194408 Crumplebury Farm Whitbourne had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Removal of a condition 4 and a variation of condition 16 application no: 163902/F (demolition of 5no. existing redundant agricultural outbuildings to facilitate expansion of existing restaurant and following events facilities: function suite, fine dining restaurant and lounge, conference space and 16no. Accommodation).

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with additional conditions.

(Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

The Committee had deferred consideration of this application at its meeting on 11 March 2020.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr C Bligh, of Welsh Newton and Llanrothal Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme, as a virtual attendee.  Mr A Hawkins, the applicant, submitted a written submission in support of the application that was read to the meeting by the legal adviser to the Committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Swinglehurst, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The following concerns had been raised by the Committee when it had deferred consideration of the application in March: whether or not the proposal was for a replacement dwelling or a new build, conflict with Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) policy WNL5, the environmental impact – particularly on hedgerows and the need to consider the impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

·        The current application did not satisfactorily address the concern about the impact on residential amenity. It was fundamentally the same building only moved so that the highest point of the building was now directly in line with the outlook from Hazeldene.   The 6m high ridge line was only a few meters distant from the boundary of the neighbouring property and would be a significant change. 

·        There is no right to a private view and consequently it is not a material planning consideration.   However, there was recent guidance and precedent supporting the right to visual amenity as part of residential amenity as a material consideration. 

·        The Burnthouse Farm windfarm inquiry was cited.  This stated in essence that where the impact on amenity was judged to be sufficiently severe by virtue of the size, scale and proximity of a development this could be a ground for refusal.

·        According to the current guidance, factors that contribute to this judgement include whether a development is ‘inescapably dominant’ or ‘unpleasantly encroaching’.

·        The part of Hazeldene that would be most severely affected is a disabled person’s dwelling, and the side garden is the only outside amenity space that is wheelchair accessible from this part of the house. 

·       Due to the scale and proximity of the proposed development on a particularly sensitive receptor the current application failed to address the problem of residential amenity and was therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies SD1, NDP WNL4 and the core principle of the NPPF in paragraph 17.

·        The revised application provided the 25 degree light calculation requested and showed that the proposed dwelling in its new location met this benchmark.  However, she questioned whether relocating the building so that the highest point was now directly in line with the adjacent property was a positive response. 

·        She considered the revised application hade made matters worse.  All that was needed was the removal of the garage portion, or for it be built as a car port with a flat  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Date of next meeting – 3 June 2020

Noted.