Proposed single storey dwelling.

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

(Councillors Greenow and Guthrie had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

The Senior 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Tyler, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor WLS Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member on behalf of Councillor WPC Crockett and spoke on the application in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was a small dwelling within Tillington and Tillington Common.  The site was sustainable with 6 bus services every weekday and 5 on weekends.  The road was wide and open with a 30mph speed limit.  There were some verges and these were safe with no hedges to obstruct the view.  The village had plentiful facilities. 

·        He suggested the proposal could be considered under policy RA2 as a location where sustainable housing growth would be supported rather than RA3 as argued in the report.

·        The proposed dwelling itself was sustainable and was an interesting design that met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  It would provide a good addition to the County’s housing stock.

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

·        Clarification was sought as to why the report classified Tillington as an RA2 settlement not Tillington Common.  It was suggested there was a possible anomaly in that the Rural Settlement hierarchy background paper showed that Tilington Common had been assessed as a sustainable settlement, not Tillington.

     The Lead Development Manager commented that Tillington and Tillington Common were two distinct settlements.  The Burghill Neighbourhood Development Plan, which was at Regulation 16 stage referred to them as separate areas and defined Tillington Common as being in open countryside with no settlement boundary around it.  The Core Strategy identified Tillington, not Tillington Common, as an RA2 settlement.

·        In addition to considering the application to be a good application representing sustainable development with other existing buildings around the plot some members considered that the application met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  Others considered the application to have merit and to be sustainable but not to fulfil the requirements of paragraph 55 and, as the area was not defined in policy RA2, and did not meet the criteria in policy RA3 it therefore represented development in the open countryside and approval would be contrary to policy.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that having regard to appeal decisions the proposal could not be considered to meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  The planning authority required an applicant to commission a recognised body at their own cost to undertake a peer review to support a case that an application met the paragraph 55 requirements.  No such review had taken place to support this application.  The proposal was a good design but could not be considered exceptional.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He considered that the question as to whether the design met the Paragraph 55 test was subjective.  However, the design was interesting and innovative; the location was sustainable and the plot was not in the open countryside; there were houses surrounding it.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved on the grounds that it met exception criteria 6 in policy RA3.  The motion was carried with 7 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.)

RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for approval by the committee and any other conditions considered necessary by officers on the grounds that the proposal met exception criteria 6 in policy RA3.