Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed 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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 22 February 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was before Committee at the request of the Local Member as he disagreed with the recommendation of the officer.  Paragraph 7.02 highlighted the main issues for consideration in determination of the application which was recommended for refusal because the application site was outside the settlement boundary of Northop Hall. 

            Mr. R. Turner, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the key issue was the principle of development for a new dwelling outside the settlement boundary.  He felt that the report did not mention that the site was just outside the settlement boundary and explained that the boundary was the wall onto Smithy Lane.  He suggested that in policy terms the site was classified as being in open countryside but Mr. Turner said that Members would have noted on the site visit that the site was hardly in open countryside.  He felt that this was an instance where either the siting of the boundary was not a realistic picture of where the settlement ended or a different approach should be taken as to what constituted open countryside as the surrounding area was not typically open countryside.  He suggested that there were already precedents for provision of dwellings outside settlement boundaries and referred to the application for 41 dwellings in Hawarden that had been permitted on appeal.  Mr. Turner drew Members’ attention to the fact that the application had not received any objections and reminded Members that the Council did not have a five year housing land supply and therefore queried how any dwelling could be deemed non-essential, as had been reported.  He asked Members to note the previous approval for the replacement of a proposed garage with ancillary accommodation had the identical form and massing as this proposal and should therefore be acceptable in the open countryside.  He referred to two sites in the area that had been submitted as candidate sites for the Local Development Plan and said that the report focussed on policy HSG7 but did not refer to HSG5 which had been raised in the design and access statement and was the policy that Mr. Turner felt the proposal could have been considered against.  He felt that the site was a highly sustainable location for a new dwelling.        

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was outside the settlement boundary and was in the open countryside and suggested that once the settlement had been breached, other proposals would come forward.  The site in Hawarden had been approved on appeal because of the lack of five year land supply and Mr. Turner had mentioned that neighbouring sites had been submitted as candidate sites.  He felt that these would be dealt with accordingly and that this application was being presumptuous.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred and queried what could be said to applicants who had their applications outside the settlement boundary turned down if this application was approved. 

            The officer said that the previous permission for an annexe was permitted in policy terms but had not been forthcoming and what was being proposed was a new dwelling which was contrary to policy. 

            On the issue of candidate sites, the Planning Strategy Manager said that policy did not use words such as ‘just outside’ or ‘nearly in’ and was why the settlement boundary was a definitive line.  He added that 41 dwellings in Hawarden was an entirely different circumstance to this proposal.  Candidate sites had been put in for consideration but currently carried no weight in the determination of applications and policy HSG5 related to limited infill which it was not felt that this proposal complied with.            

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).