Issue - meetings

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses were detailed in the report.

The officer detailed the reasons for recommending refusal of the application in respect of non-compliance with national policies and with no material considerations to outweigh the harm from inappropriate development in the open countryside.

Councillor Dunbar moved the officer recommendation for refusal which was seconded.  Councillor Dunbar stated the proposal was a detached dwelling in open countryside and did not adhere to local need and infill policies.

Councillor Roberts said the proposal was not acceptable due to the location in the green barrier.

Councillor Peers referred to the report’s conclusions on inappropriate development in the green barrier and no proven local need, both of which he said applied to the previous application.  Whilst indicating support for approval of this application, he felt that the only difference between the two cases was on the principles of sustainable location and raised concerns about approving applications on that basis.

Councillor Christine Jones drew similar comparisons with the previous report and requested a deferral to allow for a site visit to support her view that this application was in a sustainable location.  The deferral was seconded by Councillor Lloyd.

The Chief Officer disagreed with comparisons on the two applications as this proposal was in the green barrier which involved a different policy test.  He said that the Committee may wish to consider the requested site visit but reaffirmed his recommendation for refusal of the application.

In view of this, Councillor Lloyd indicated that he wished to withdraw his seconding of the proposal.  As the motion put forward by Councillor Jones was not seconded by another Member, the motion was not debated further.

In response to a query, the officer advised that the whole of the application site in the green barrier.

With regard to comparisons drawn with the previous report, the Service Manager Strategy explained the significant difference in respect of the location of this site.  Following comments from Councillor Christine Jones on previous permission given to neighbouring cottages, he was unable to confirm whether or not they were part of the green barrier but surmised that permission may have accorded with policy requirements of the adopted Development Plan at that time.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, in accordance with the officer recommendation, was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).