Change of use of existing barn to 5 dwellings.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JA Hyde, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

She supported the arguments advanced by the applicant’s agent in support of the scheme and commented on a number of issues including:

·         The development provided much needed affordable housing.

·         Facilities were accessible.

·         The access off the A49 was adequate.

·         The current permission for a change of the farm building to B1 light industrial use was inappropriate in that location.

·         An exception to policy was justified.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Residential use was preferable to B1 use which would generate considerable commercial traffic.

·         The development was sustainable.  There was access to a bus service and other services and facilities.

·         The type of development proposed would meet a local need.  It would help to support the rural economy.

·         The Committee needed to be cautious about refusing the application.  The dwelling was not “isolated” and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework would therefore not apply.

·         It was suggested that the developer should be required to make the properties as economical as possible to use given the cost of utilities.

·         The comparative merits of retaining the building and developing it, or new build, were discussed.  Some suggested the proposal represented poor design and was not sustainable; others thought the scheme was a good design and was certainly an improvement on the existing building.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There was a need for such housing and there remained a shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply.

·         It was suggested that there should be a condition removing permitted development rights.

·         The report made clear that the housing was not affordable housing as defined in policy but was low cost market housing with no legal mechanism to ensure affordability in the long term.  It was therefore questioned whether the properties would remain within reach of local people in the longer term.

·         The proposal contravened a number of policies.

The Development Manager commented that the proposal was not on its own sustainable.  There was a balance to be struck.  He did not consider the arguments in support for the development outweighed the reasons for refusing it.  Granting permission would undermine a number of policies.

The Principal Planning Officer commented on the characteristics of an affordable housing scheme as defined by policy and how this contrasted with the proposed development.  He noted that the applicant could have proposed an affordable housing development as defined by policy but had chosen not to do so.  The application also contained no proposals for energy efficient measures.  If the Committee was minded to approve the development he suggested there should be conditions relating to use of materials, removal of permitted development rights and a hedgerow management scheme.

Members cited a number of policies in support of the development:

DR1 - Design

DR4 - Environment

S1 - Sustainable Development

H14 - Re-using previously developed land and buildings

HBA 12 – Re-use of Rural Buildings

HBA 13 (2) – demonstrable local housing need.

S11 – Community Facilities and Services

T11 – Parking Provision

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her support for the scheme.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the conditions in consultation with the local ward member and the applicant.

INFORMATIVE

1            The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. The Planning Committee of the Council considered that the shortfall in the Council's 5 year housing land supply should be attached significant weight. They also considered the site to be a brownfield site in a relatively sustainable location. They also considered that the dwellings would be affordable due to their limited size.

2            The landscaping details pursuant to condition 5 should include, amongst other matters, the retention of the existing hedgerows and the planting of a new hedge of native species along the southern boundary of the site.

3          It is possible that unforeseen contamination may be present on the site as a result of its former agricultural/orchard use. Consideration should be given to the possibility of encountering contamination on the site as a result of its former uses and specialist advice be sought should there be any concern about the land.