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.

Alison Callaby presented the report to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Rachel Newling and Jonathan Blunt, the applicants.

Rachel Newling explained how she has grown up in the area and wishes to continue living in the area and continue with the family fruit farm business. Rachel Newling stated that she is aware that the proposal is for a bigger home than the original, but she would like to be able to make it a future family home. Mr Blunt commented that the existing farmhouse is a lovely old building, however, time has taken its toll on it and it is no longer safe to live in. The farmhouse is not listed and no historical background, but has a sentimental history to the family, hence the wish to rebuild it. The old house will be taken down brick by brick so that they can be used again and will have the same recessed windows and the same slate roof, using reclaimed slate from the old house and the same two chimneys. Mr Blunt stated that with regard to LP12, Part 12, e) under permitted development they would have been allowed an 8 metre extension on the original northview site, but the area they are requesting approval for is another 6 metres. This part would not be visible to the neighbours opposite and will not be an intrusion.

Members asked Rachel Newling and Jonathan Blunt the following question:

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification as to whether the current property is subject to any agricultural restriction. It was confirmed that it does not.

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

·         Councillor Sutton asked for clarification whether the frontage is exactly the same and it was confirmed that it was. Councillor Sutton stated that personally he has no objection to the new application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that, in his opinion, in this case we should go against the officer’s recommendation, the proposal is on a huge plot and it will not look out of place.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated she does not like going against Officers recommendation and asked for clarification concerning permitted development.

·         Alison Callaby clarified that permitted development would allow an 8 metre single storey extension as a larger home extension and in terms of a 2 storey extension, you could extend 3 metres and explained that there was a condition restricting permitted development on the original application and with the proposal before committee today a certain amount of permitted development would be allowed, however, the proposal exceeds this.

·         Mr Harding stated that if committee were minded to approve the application there is the option to remove permitted development rights going forward.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she has listened to the presentation and if the frontage has not been changed at all, the proposal is in a rural setting and the business is flourishing and the young couple wish to make it a family home, then she will go against the Officers recommendation.

·         Councillor Murphy commented that it cannot be classed as a small amount when it is 90% greater and we are going against our policy and he also added we would then be setting another precedent.

·         Mr Harding added that as Alison Callaby stated in her presentation, Members should not just look at the increase in size from the original. Alison had highlighted what harm would arise as a consequence and  if Members went ahead and granted consent it would be on the basis that they did not agree with what Officers were saying in the context of the harm that would arise and, therefore, it would not necessarily be setting a precedent.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he has the greatest respect for Officer’s and he fully understand that Officers will follow the plans which is only correct procedure , however on this occasion the 28% increase is a big increase which is over and above what would normally go up to. Councillor Sutton stated he does not see what harm this development would cause and Members of the Planning Committee have the authority to say that on this occasion this proposal is not out of place.

·         Councillor Benney commented that on the site visit when he looked at the plot, in his opinion, the proposal was very in keeping with the plot and it will be asset to the village.

·         Mr Harding stated that if Members decide to approve this application against Officers recommendation would they be seeking to give Officers authority to add on certain conditions which would include the removal of permitted development rights.

·         Councillor Sutton asked why would permitted development rights have to be part of the conditions.

·         Councillor Laws stated so that the property cannot be extended any further.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Clark that this application be APPROVED against the Officers recommendation with the provision that Officers are given authority to put on certain conditions which would include the removal of permitted Development rights.