Agenda item

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions 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.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses were detailed in the report.

The officer gave a summary of the application for the erection of a two-storey dwelling with attached single storey garage and workshop.  The report detailed the main considerations and concluded that the application was recommended for approval due to compliance with the principles of planning policies on sustainable development and development in open countryside.

Against the officer’s recommendation, Councillor Butler proposed that the application be refused as he felt it did not comply with most planning policies, was outside the footprint of the original area where permission had been given, outside the settlement boundary and would set a precedent for developments encroaching onto the green barrier.  He also referred to sections of the report on sustainable development and excessive growth in Broughton.

The proposal for refusal was seconded by Councillor Peers who recalled other applications refused on the basis of their location in open countryside.  In supporting Councillor Butler’s views, he said that the lack of five year land supply and sustainable development principles did not outweigh the location of the site in open countryside.

These views were also shared by Councillors Mullin and Lloyd who raised additional concerns about surface water drainage and further expansion of the site.

In response, the officer drew attention to the findings of the report which clarified why the circumstances of the application outweighed the fact that the site was in open countryside.  She added that no precedent could be set as no further encroachment onto the countryside would be permitted.

In advising the Committee, the Service Manager Strategy highlighted the main aspects of this application which differed significantly from those on the case recommended for refusal considered earlier in the meeting.  He said that local and national policies had been met in this case and could not see evidence of any planning harm, clarifying that the site was in fact surrounded by the green barrier.  He went on to explain the rationale for determining this as a sustainable development, based on the urban context and proximity to Broughton retail park; a consideration which would be afforded significant weight in the event of an appeal.

This opinion was endorsed by the Development Manager who pointed out that a further consideration to any appeal would be the garden area benefiting from permitted development rights.

In summing up, Councillor Butler stated his reasons for proposing refusal: non-compliance with the principles of previous consent on the site which should have applied to the footprint of existing dwellings only; the garden had been part of the green barrier at that time; the location outside the settlement boundary and the erection of a single dwelling not contributing to the five year land supply.  In response to officers’ advice, he disagreed that exceptional circumstances had been shown on this application.

The Development Manager clarified that the principles of previous consent on the site could not be included as a reason for refusal on this application.

Prior to the vote, the Senior Solicitor advised that if the motion to refuse was lost, the default position was approval in accordance with the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse planning permission, against the officer recommendation, was lost.  Therefore, the officer recommendation to approve the application was granted.

Councillor Matthews asked that her decision to abstain from the vote be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).