Proposed erection of one dwelling, garage and associated works.

Application approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Barrington spoke on behalf of Little Birch Parish Council, a statement was read on behalf of Mr Jones, local resident, in objection to the application and Mr Wilson, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. She explained that currently the site was used for stabling of horses and the application would offer a future for the activity. It would also allow accommodation for a local family who had lived in the parish for a number of years and had strong connections with the local community. The proposed development had no impact on the landscape or the local heritage asset the church. The Little Birch and Aconbury NDP was nuanced and did not provide a definitive settlement boundary. The proposed application site would front onto Ruff Lane and would be accessed by Bowlers Lane. An interpretation of NDP policy LBA3 could include the application site within the settlement boundary rather than in open countryside and permit development.

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the committee raised the following principal points:

- the application was consistent with NDP policy LBA 4.7, which proposed a flexible approach to differentiating between settlement and countryside.
- the application was consistent with the terms of NDP policy LBA 3 as the site was located off Ruff Lane.
- the application was consistent with the terms of NDP policy LBA 3 and 4 to provide for windfall development on land adjacent to the settlement matrix.
- there was no detrimental impact on the landscape or local heritage assets.
- the proposed development was not located in open countryside; due to the lack of a settlement boundary and therefore core strategy policy RA3 did not apply.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

A motion that the application be approved due to: consistency with the Little Birch and Aconbury NDP (policies 3 and 4); no adverse impact on the local heritage asset; and the development was not considered to be located in open countryside due to the lack of a settlement boundary, was proposed by Councillor Dave Davis and seconded by Councillor Richard Thomas. The motion was put to the vote and carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED - that

a)    the application be approved due to: consistency with the Little Birch and Aconbury NDP (policies 3 and 4); no adverse impact on the local heritage asset; and the development is not considered to be located in open countryside due to the lack of a defined settlement boundary.

b)    authority is delegated to officers to draft and impose conditions for the planning permission, in consultation with the chairperson and vice chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory committee.