Erection of a housing unit comprising of an independently accessed single storey one bedroom dwelling and a two bedroom dormer style bungalow.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Erection of a housing unit comprising of an independently accessed single storey one bedroom dwelling and a two bedroom dormer style bungalow.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He added that confidential medical information, alluded to in the report, had been provided by the applicants.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Hubbard, of Humber, Ford and Stoke Prior Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs S Snead, a relative of the applicant, also spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The report referred to a mobile home on the site but this was better described as a permanent park home.

·        The applicant’s son had severe medical needs and the parents were seeking to continue to provide care for him themselves and facilitate their daughter taking on that role by providing a replacement new building that would allow family members to remain on site.

·        Policy RA3 stated that replacement dwellings would be permitted. The proposal would provide replacement accommodation on the site that was not excessive and would be more sustainable.

·        The Parish Council supported the application and considered that it was consistent with the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        The proposal was also compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The applicant had withdrawn an initial application that had not met with the Parish Council’s approval.  The Parish Council did support the current application.  Paragraph 10.2.6 of the NDP indicated that some development may be permitted on Poplands Lane even though it was outside the settlement boundary.

·        The existing mobile home was coming to the end of its life.  The proposal would provide a superior replacement.

·        Local residents supported the application.

·        The proposal would have no negative visual impact.

·        It was important that the Committee should be consistent in applying the council’s approved policies, which applied equally to smaller applications as to larger ones.

·        The Lead Development Manager clarified that planning permission for the existing park home had lapsed and it was therefore unauthorised development.  The application was for two new dwellings in the open countryside: a large 2 bedroom unit with a single storey one bed unit attached to it but not linked.

·        The legal adviser added that a mobile home was not classified as a dwelling in planning law.  Personal circumstances were not a material planning consideration.

In conclusion the legal adviser reminded members that, as set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report, applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee was not a social care committee.  He reiterated that the application was clearly for two dwellings in the open countryside.  It was not an application for the provision of a replacement dwelling.  The applicant could have sought to extend their existing property by providing an annex.  It was in those circumstances that personal circumstances could be taken into account, even to the extent of permitting a larger extension than would otherwise have been countenanced.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He considered the personal circumstances to be exceptional and the application to be for a housing unit.  He reiterated that the Parish Council supported the application and considered it to be consistent with the NDP.  The Committee should support the NDP.

It was proposed that the application should be approved on the grounds that it was sustainable development consistent with the NDP.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary on the grounds that the proposal was sustainable development consistent with the neighbourhood development plan.