Proposed new dwelling.

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

(Proposed new dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He added that 4 further letters of support had been received.  He also corrected paragraph 6.7 of the report noting that it should have referred to criterion 5 of policy RA3 rather than criterion 4.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Jones of Longtown Group Parish Council spoke in support of the application.  Mr C Morel the applicant also spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The Applicant’s family had owned the land on which the site was located for three generations and there were remains of a stone cottage that had been occupied until the 1980s.

·        He remarked upon the applicants work in establishing a local business and in running the post office and local shop making them a crucial local service provider.

·        The proposed dwelling would be sustainably constructed, virtually to Passivhaus standards.

·        There had been no objections from consultees.

·        The Parish Council supported the application.  There were letters of support from local residents and no objections.

·        The application fulfilled the requirements of policy SS2.  It met a housing need, supported the local economy and was responsive to the needs of the community.

·        Paragraph 6.7 of the report stated that criterion 5 of Policy RA 3 allowed rural exception housing in accordance with policy H2.  Paragraph 6.8 of the report stated that proposals for affordable housing schemes in rural areas may be permitted on land which would not normally be released for housing where three criteria were met.  Paragraph 6.1.5 of the report praised the proposed development.  The only criterion of policy H2 that the report considered was not partially met was that the development must offer reasonable access to a range of services. 

·        The question of what constituted reasonable access needed to be considered in the local context and the distances from the proposed dwelling to services were reasonable in that context.

·        The proposal was the only way the applicant could acquire a home in the locality because he owned the land and had the skills to construct the dwelling.

·        The proposal warranted approval as a rural exception site.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal, there was local support and no objections.

·        There was support for the views of the local ward member that the distance to local services was reasonable in the local context.

·        The design of the proposed dwelling was good. 

·        There had been a dwelling on the site.

·        Paragraph 6.9 of the report noted that there was a local need for affordable housing and that, subject to an appropriately worded Section 106 agreement, the development would assist in meeting that need in perpetuity.  Members expressed support for such an agreement if the application were approved.

·        A request was also made that the woodland surrounding the application site should be managed and protected.

The Development Manager commented that the proposal was for a dwelling in the open countryside contrary to policy.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a Section 106 agreement could ensure that the property remained as affordable housing.  However, he did not consider that the property could be tied to the business in Longtown.  With regard to protection of the woodland, a landscape management plan would be a necessary condition if approval was granted.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement to ensure that the property remained as affordable housing in perpetuity and any other conditions considered necessary.