Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

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.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Martin Williams, the agent. Mr Williams expressed the view that the proposed site is almost surrounded by building and from a plan on the presentation screen members can see the proposed dwelling sits comfortably on the plot whilst still leaving a large garden for number 241. He made the point that there have been no objections from any of the consultees to this application or the previous one, with no letters of objection but 8 letters of support and Newton-in-the-Isle Parish Council support it reading out their comments as detailed in the officer’s report.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Purser referred to the fact that this proposal had previously been refused and asked what had changed on this application? It was indicated that nothing had changed.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the hobby room, which has its own separate entrance and whilst it is a small space she asked whether it should be conditioned that it has to remain as such and cannot be used for living accommodation? David Rowen responded that this may be premature as the proposal is for refusal but clearly if members were minded to grant planning permission and had a particular concern about this then it is something that could be conditioned.

·       Councillor Sutton asked for confirmation that the development is within the curtilage of the existing dwelling? Danielle Brooke responded that it is associated garden land that is currently within the curtilage of that dwelling.

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

·       Councillor Benney said he visited the site and village separately to the site inspections and he can see why LP12 is one of the reasons for refusal but he fails to see how LP3 is as there is a brand-new build just the other side of the junction. He stated that he rode around the block and there has been little bits of building and odd infills and houses from old farm cottages, some built in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s as you can look at the bricks and style of buildings and there also seems to be quite a lot of new development that has taken place. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this proposal is within the village under LP3 and under LP12 it is on the end, with it not specifying about it not being garden land and the other side of the T-junction has been built on and the whole village has sporadic development of different one-off houses. He feels that LP16(d), which is another reason for refusal, is a subjective planning policy and that this proposal would be a positive development for the village and he can see nothing wrong with it.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that if you want an example of a Local Plan that is a real benefit to its village and its growth and sustainability you need to look at Doddington in the 1993 plan, Doddington was on its knees dying and did not have hardly any groups and now it is a thriving village as the 1993 plan allowed development. He feels if you look at the other end of the scale and what the Local Plan can do the other way then a fine example is Newton-in-the-Isle, no development in the 1993 plan, very little development over the last few years and all that keeps being said is it is not sustainable, with the new Local Plan unfortunately seemingly going in the same direction. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that the Council should not be looking at somewhere and saying it is not sustainable but should be saying how through the Local Plan can it be made sustainable and as Newton-in-the-Isle Parish Council rightly say it is very worried about only having 6 dwellings in the emerging Local Plan going forward. He feels the small villages need all the help they can be given, he does not regard this proposal as being demonstrably harmful in its setting, it is not really an elsewhere location, he cannot see anything wrong with it and could approve it, although he respects the officer’s conclusion.  

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she remembers the same thing happened in Christchurch to keep the local shop open. She referred to the comments of Councillor Benney and under LP16(e) she feels it does not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbours using light and noise pollution, it provides sufficient private amenity and she cannot see any problems with this proposal whatsoever.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton as he cannot see any issues with this proposal, it is one building next to another one at the end of a road and is only for one dwelling.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Meekins and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation, with delegation given to officers to formulate conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal does comply with LP3 and LP12 as it is not building within the open countryside so it does not cause harm to the character of the countryside, there is a new development in close vicinity to the site, there is sporadic development throughout Newton-in-the-Isle, villages need support and housing and they feel LP16 is subjective and the proposal is not detrimental to the street scene but beneficial.

(Councillor Meekins declared that he knows the agent as he has undertaken work for him but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)