Agenda item

To Determine the Application

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in objection to the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Goat (Applicant).

Mr Goat thanked members for the opportunity to speak. He explained that the existing dwelling on the site is small and not fit for requirement. He has 4 adults living in the property with 17 acres of livestock. Whilst the proposed dwelling is larger than the existing house, it will not be excessive in size.

Members asked Mr Goat the following questions;

1.     Councillor Benney asked for confirmation that the proposed dwelling will heated from an Air Source Heat Pump. Mr Goat confirmed this and added that the property will also benefit from passive-house insulation and rainwater collection.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.     Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that this site forms part of her Ward and whilst she is aware that each area surrounding Wisbech St Mary is unique, she sees no issues with this development. The applicant wishes to improve their living accommodation and the proposed dwelling sits on a large plot.

2.     Councillor Benney agreed and said whilst the proposed dwelling will be significantly larger than the existing house, this should not be considered. If the applicant was to build a property of equal size, this would not be fit for purpose. He welcomed the development as the property will be positioned on a large plot.

3.     Councillor Bristow asked for confirmation of the square footage of the outbuildings. David Rowen confirmed that the proposed footprint of the garage is 169m2 and the existing garage is approximately 45m2.

4.     Councillor Bristow asked if there are any dwellings of a similar size to the proposal situated in the locality. David Rowen said there are large dwellings located nearby however he is unaware of the planning history of these properties. He highlighted that the one situated nearby sits on a corner plot.

5.     Councillor Lynn said when members visited the site during their site visits, it is clear that the existing property is in need of renovation. He believes the proposed application will enhance the area.

6.     Councillor Rackley agreed and said the plot would suit a larger dwelling. He highlighted that there are no nearby neighours and he supported the application.

7.     Councillor Sutton referred to point 11.1 of the report (page 105 of the agenda pack). He supported the application and referenced other similar developments locally that have had planning permission approved.

8.     David Rowen reminded members that whilst the principal of replacing the existing dwelling is not an issue, it is the scale of the proposal. He informed Councillor Sutton of the differences between this application and the similar developments he referenced. He explained that the recommendation to refuse planning permission is based on the scale of the proposal which will be excessive for the rural location it is situated in. He added that members must consider that by approving this application a precedent may be set for similar, isolated dwellings with land.

9.     Councillor Lynn reiterated that the site is not subject to neighbours in a close proximity and cannot see any issues with the proposal.

10.David Rowen explained that in planning terms, development in the countryside is viewed differently to urban development. The National Planning Policy aims to restrict development in the countryside to sites only where development is required, essential and to a scale appropriate to its rural surroundings. He explained that the issue officers have with this application is that the proposed dwelling is excessive in size compared to its surrounding countryside and has little justification as to why it is required.

11.Councillor Patrick agreed with officers that the development will have an exceptionally large footprint and by approving the application, the Council will set a precedent for similar schemes. He supported officer’s recommendations to refuse the application.

12.Councillor Murphy agreed as the proposed dwelling is too large and should not be allowed in the countryside. He highlighted that if all large dwellings in the countryside were to apply for planning permission to increase their property by this size, there would be a big issue. He agreed with David Rowen and officers comments.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs Bligh and decided that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follow;

1.     Councillor Mrs Bligh said the scheme is acceptable and the size of the proposed dwelling is subjective and will be in proportion with the surrounding plot.

2.     Councillor Sutton said whilst officers believe the development will be detrimental to the surrounding area, members take the opposite view and try to be consistent with decisions made by the Planning Committee on previous planning applications.

3.     Councillor Rackley agreed and said each application should be assessed on its own merit. He reiterated that the proposed dwelling will suit the plot.

4.     Councillor Connor reminded members that there needs to be material grounds under planning policy to go against officer recommendation.

5.     Councillor Sutton stated that members disagree with the reasons provided by officers to refuse the planning permission.

6.     David Rowen said on this basis, officers can implement planning conditions based on this. He asked that members delegate appropriate authority to officers to formulate appropriate planning conditions to this planning permission. Members agreed.

7.     Councillor Sutton said historically when members have gone against officers recommendations to refuse planning permission; officers have provided members with a proposed list of planning conditions. He asked in future this approach is taken. David Rowen stated that in his experience, a formal set of planning conditions have not been pre-prepared in cases where members have gone against officers recommendation. He said if members are not happy to give delegated authority to officers, members can propose planning conditions now. Otherwise, he is happy for officers to propose planning condition and seek final approval from the Chairman.

8.     Councillor Connor agreed with David Rowen’s approach.

9.     Councillor Sutton said he was happy with this approach in this instance however in the future, he asked officers to prepare a draft of planning conditions for all applications prior to the meeting.

(Councillor Meekins declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is an acquaintance of the applicant and abstained from voting)

(Councillor Lynn declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is an acquaintance of the applicant and abstained from voting)

(Councillor Mrs Bligh declared an interest by virtue of the fact that she attends Wisbech St Mary Parish Council meetings but takes no part in discussions)