Agenda item

That Planning Permission 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 considerations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report, including a statement by the applicant.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

The officer explained that the application was to develop part of the site, with the remainder kept for wildlife mitigation.  Although other sites in the locality had been put forward as part of preparations for the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), this site had not been included as the Inspector had not considered it necessary for any further allocations.  The application had been submitted on the basis of being outside the UDP period and the lack of a five year land supply.  Although the location was outside the settlement boundary and in open countryside, there was a requirement to consider the application due to the housing land supply.  Whilst Northop was recognised to be an area of growth, there were concerns about the location of the site and proximity to the settlement boundary.  In addition, the findings of an independent assessment on behalf of the Council indicated a significant landscape and visual impact from the development, contrary to the findings of the assessment submitted with the application.  Further concerns were in relation to the location of the site to nearby historic buildings and conservation area, and the loss of Grade 2 land.

Mr. A. Sheldon, Agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application on the basis of: plans showing a lack of available appropriate land in the area to meet the recognised housing need; the space between the site and nearest buildings; and the sustainable location within walking distance of local facilities.  He also pointed out that the application made provision for the transfer of a nearby area of designated ancient woodland to a suitable environment organisation with money gifted to ensure the future management.  He referred to the different conclusions of the visual assessments and said that a balanced approach was needed as there would be no significant impact and that the loss of Grade 2 land, if this was the case, was minimal.

In agreement with the reasons set out in the report, Councillor Derek Butler proposed that the application be refused.  He agreed that the location was not suitable, that it was in open countryside, that the land was Grade 2 and that there was overprovision within the UDP in Northop.  On paragraph 7.22 of the report, he welcomed the Inspector’s conclusion that TAN1 did not provide an opportunity to develop in unsuitable locations.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Marion Bateman referred to the location of the site away from the village and in open countryside.  She also pointed out that interest in the development was not an indication of housing need as demonstrated by the number of local properties currently advertised for sale.

Councillor Gareth Roberts complimented the officer on the report and spoke in support of the recommendation to refuse the application.  He said that the site was located away from the main part of the village and stressed the importance of securing ‘natural’ developments and heeding the decisions of the Inspector.  On the provision to protect the remaining site, he felt that allowing the application would set a dangerous precedent if a future application was made.

Councillor Mike Peers also spoke in support of refusal, stating that TAN1 did not justify applications for development at inappropriate locations and that the completion of the Local Development Plan (LDP) process would enable some control.  Following a query on paragraph 1.01 of the report, the officer clarified that consideration of the site specific issues outweighed the lack of a five year land supply.

The Planning Strategy Manager referred to Mr. Sheldon’s comments on housing need in Northop and pointed out that this had not been determined at this stage.  He said that TAN1 alone did not justify submission of an application on an inappropriate site as demonstrated in the report.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried.

RESOLVED:

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