Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning. 

            The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            The Development Manager explained that the Committee had deferred this application at the previous meeting to allow the local Member to be present and had been the subject of a site visit on 18 June 2012.  The plot was capable of supporting a dwelling but the principle of development did not comply with Policy HSG3.  The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy HSG3 only allowed for new build local needs housing in category C settlement where the growth rate had not exceeded 10%; in the case of Trelogan & Berthengam the growth rate was 16.7%.       

            The local Member, Councillor N.R. Steele-Mortimer, proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that he considered the site to be a windfall site and highlighted the consultations and publicity sections of the report where it was reported that no objections had been received.  He also referred to paragraphs 7.06, 7.07 and 7.08 where it was reported that the growth rate was 16.7% and said that he felt that this was a retrospective figure.  He added that prior to the adoption of the UDP, developments of this nature had been considered on their merits.

            Councillor W.O. Thomas said that the site was within the boundary of the village and was an infill site.  He referred to the percentage growth calculation and said that, in his opinion, the policy did not appear to be followed for all applications.  Councillor R.C. Bithell said that the policy was in place to limit the development in settlements and that for a category C settlement, the growth rate should not exceed 10%.  However, he added that it already exceeded this rate because of previous applications which had been completed or committed to since 2000 (which was the base date of the UDP) when the figures were calculated.  He felt that to permit the application would set a precedent and the policy in place should be adhered to and the application be refused.  Councillor H.G. Roberts concurred that the application should be refused.  

            The Interim Team Leader (Policy) said that on the issue of spatial distribution in the county the UDP Inspector had looked at what would be most sustainable and had allowed higher percentage growth rates for larger settlements and had allocated a 10% growth rate for smaller settlements. Where the percentage had been exceeded he advised that new development might be accommodated where there was a clear local need but in this instance there was no evidence presented of any local need, which meant that it did not comply with Policy HSG3. 

            The Head of Planning said that growth rates continued to be monitored on an annual basis. 

            In summing up, Councillor Steele-Mortimer said that a current policy was being applied retrospectively to the detriment of the village and that in his opinion, the application should be approved. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.                     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.