Proposed erection of 2 detached dwellings with detached garages.

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

(Proposed erection of 2 detached dwellings with detached garages.)

(Councillor Skelton as local ward member had no vote on this application.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred by the Committee on 25 July, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He informed the Committee that two objections had been received in response to the consultation on the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which was at Regulation 16 stage.  One of the objections related to the land that was the subject of the application before the Committee.  Only limited weight could be given to the NDP.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs E Tucker, of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Rogers, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application on behalf of the local ward member having fulfilled that role during the processing of the application

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site adjoined the settlement boundary and the Committee had been made aware of the site’s history.

·        It was the last day of consultation on the NDP and he was aware of the objections to the provisions relating to the application site.

·        A judicial review had been lodged against the Committee’s decision on 27June 2018 to grant permission for application 173699 – land at Woonton, Almeley, contrary to the emerging NDP upon which at that time the Regulation 16 consultation had commenced.  Following the Committee’s decision in discussion with the local MP he had been in correspondence with the Minister for Housing.  The Minister had replied that from the date of publication decision takers could give weight to relevant policies in the emerging plan that could include the stage of preparation unresolved objections and consistency with other national policies.  Planning guidance also set out where circumstances may justify the refusal of planning permission on grounds that an application would be premature in relation to the emerging local or neighbourhood plan. Any weight a relevant policy could carry in determining applications remained a matter for the decision maker.

·        He considered that the application should be refused.  The applicant could appeal and it would then be a matter for the Planning Inspector to determine the legal aspects.  Because of the site’s history and this legal grey area he did not consider that this would put the authority at the risk of incurring costs.

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

·        Paragraph 6.8 of the report stated that the main consideration was whether any adverse impacts associated with the development would significantly outweigh the public benefits.  The Parish had not achieved its minimum housing target.  The proposed development of 2 houses was modest, would contribute towards that target, was sustainable and would enhance the area.  A larger infill development could have been proposed.  There were few objections and none from statutory consultees.

·        A contrary view was that the proposal would have an adverse effect on grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings and was in a conservation area. The application did not preserve or enhance the area.  Only a development of outstanding quality could even be considered in that location.

·        It was important the Committee was consistent in its decision making noting that in its meeting that morning it had refused application 180157 at Sutton St Nicholas because of the impact on a grade 2 listed building and the conservation area.

·        The advice that limited weight could be given to the NDP was questioned having regard to recent case law.

·        The current neglected state of the site did not justify the development.

·        The applicant had sought to address the reasons for previous refusals of applications on the site.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the five year housing land supply figure was to be updated in September 2018.  The NDP would be submitted to an examiner to review the NDP and objections to it and this would take 3-4 months. It would not therefore be appropriate to defer consideration of the application again.  If the Committee did refuse the application the applicant could await the examiner’s decision and either submit a new application, or appeal, depending on whether or not the examiner upheld their objection to the NDP.  He reiterated that the NDP could be afforded only limited weight. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the concerns about the quality of design expressed by several members provided policy grounds for refusing the application.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

Councillor Powers proposed and Councillor Seldon seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD2 and LD4 and paragraphs 135 and 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and relevant policies in the emerging NDP.  The motion was carried with 8 votes in favour, 6 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies LD2 and LD4, paragraphs 135 and 193 of the NPPF and relevant policies in the emerging NDP, and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons put forward for refusal.

(The meeting adjourned between 2.55pm and 3.00pm)