Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey stated that the application is made on behalf of Jason Jolley, there was a previous application for 3 dwellings but this has been changed following comments of the Parish Council down to 2 detached barn style dwellings together with a new access. He made the point that the application is now supported by the Parish Council and this was taken on board after their comments on the previous refusal, with Highways and Environmental Health having no objections, 7 letters of support from Doddington residents, 1 from a Chatteris family who farm opposite and the site is also in Flood Zone 1.

Mr Humphrey expressed the opinion that the application sits between 4 existing dwellings so it is not in isolation and quoted the comments in the officer’s report at 2.2, with to the rear of the site and further out of the village there have been approvals for 20 caravan pitches, 4 glamping pods, toilet block, a further application for 18 caravan pitches plus 30 caravan pitches, toilet block, 2 log cabins, car park, treatment plant, 8 log cabins plus a 4-bed house, which hardly demonstrates, in his view, open countryside, with all of them being further away from the village. He stated that the Planning Officer also acknowledges in 9.2 that there is a better build to plot ratio as larger garden spaces are provided and 10.12 states the proposal would harm the open character of the area and conflict with policies, which he finds interesting when there are all the other applications that have been supported and approved by committee. He requested on balance that this application sits nicely between the existing 4 dwellings and in front of the developments mentioned and requested members’ support.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the caravans and log cabins that Mr Humphrey mentioned and asked if this was in the open countryside as well? Mr Humphrey confirmed this to be the case.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is further out of Doddington than another application that was refused but that was also refused by a different committee to the one present today. He made the point that this application is supported by Doddington Parish Council, who does voice its concerns when they do not want something to go ahead so as much as it is building in the open countryside Doddington Parish Council seems to want this development, they are a serious consultee within the planning process and members should listen to what they say and they must see some merit in this application speculating that as it has buildings either side they might class it as infill and, in his view, this road will one day be filled in with houses.

·       Councillor Gerstner agreed that Doddington Parish Council supports this application and from what the agent said he thinks the Planning Committee needs to be consistent in its deliberations if all these other applications which were quoted appear to have been approved.

·       Councillor Marks stated that this seems a bit back to front from the village, with it now working back into the village and there are houses to the left of this, it is also next door to quite a new looking modern house with a building beside it and he believes this development will fit in well and he will be supporting the application, especially hearing what Doddington has said.

·       Nick Harding drew committee’s attention to the previous recent committee decision which was to refuse planning consent and as the Case Officer indicated there is nothing about this application which changes the principles that the committee considered at that point in time so, therefore, the decision today should be the same as it was previously as nothing has changed. He further drew members’ attention to the Code of Conduct on Planning which refers to the issue of perversity and maladministration if a local authority planning committee is approving an application which was previously refused where there has been no change in circumstances so members need to be very careful when dealing with this application. Nick Harding stated that the starting point is the adopted Local Plan, which indicates in its settlement hierarchy and development strategy the approach for dealing with development, this is clearly a location that does not sit in the settlement which is listed in the Local Plan, therefore, by default it is classed as being an elsewhere location and as an elsewhere location there is only a limited number of circumstances within which a general residential development will be approved and this application is not one of those. He referred to reference being made to other developments, for example leisure developments, and made the point that tourist developments generally take place in the open countryside and that is part of the adopted planning policy and outside of settlement boundaries so that cannot be a reason for allowing general residential development to take place outside of the settlement. Nick Harding stated in relation to the Parish Council comments the Council has no idea what considerations that Parish Council gave to the adopted Local Plan or national planning policies which relate to general residential development in countryside locations so in its notification that they support the application it is not known in what context this was made and whether they actually understood the planning policy position that they had to have due regard to in arriving at their recommendation and they have also not identified the reasons why an exception should be made to Local Plan policy.

·       Councillor Marks requested clarification on nothing has changed with the members of the committee having changed and now there is a different factor where Doddington Parish Council have also changed their view. The Legal Officer stated that members have always been advised that the mere fact of support from a Parish Council is not in itself a reason to grant planning permission, members have to have planning reasons for making a planning decision and that is not a planning reason. He added that the fact that members of this committee may be different to previous committees does not absolve the need for consistency in decision making.

·       Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that members have to be guided by officer’s comments on what the rules and regulations are as well although the committee has changed and views may have changed.

·       Councillor Hicks asked for clarification that if members are being told that they have to vote a certain way is that not pre-determination on behalf of the planning officers. The Legal Officer advised that it is not as members of the committee have to take account of planning policies both local and national and if all those planning policies point in the same direction on one application and it gets refused and the next time a similar application is considered those policies have not changed then that would point in the direction of the same decision. He added that he is not saying that this is pre-determination, pre-determination is when you have made your mind up about an application before you have heard any debate on it or officer’s advice on it. Councillor Hicks stated that he probably used the wrong word and meant being guided in a certain direction, led into a decision that members would probably not normally vote for. The Legal Officer stated that the committee is bound to follow planning policies unless there are good reasons to depart from them is what the law says.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that listening to the comments of Nick she was dumbfounded as he gave the impression that the Town and Parish Councillors either do not know what they are doing or are not following policy and she feels his statement was quite dangerous and upsetting for Town and Parish Councillors as they are there elected by residents to look and listen at what is going on and they have the right to change their mind. She stated that she does not remember committee approving log cabins and glamping so assumes it was under delegated powers but this committee is a new committee and interpretation of policies sometimes differs from what members think to what officer’s think. Nick Harding responded that he was not dismissing the Parish Council representation on the application but what he was saying is that there is a support or object representation from an organisation but there is no understanding on how that was arrived at so potentially that representation was arrived at perfectly appropriately or alternatively it might have been arrived at by a complete misunderstanding of policy and the Council does not know. He made the point that as stated by the Legal Officer just because there is a representation to say support or object to an application there is no text either way that identifies how this was arrived at so it is difficult for officers in making a decision to know what amount of weight to put to this representation so therefore it is a case of what do policies say about this development proposal and are there any material planning considerations that dictate that it is appropriate so a different conclusion can be arrived at. Nick Harding stated that the Code of Conduct is quite clear that just because it is a different set of members sitting on the committee that does not automatically mean a different decision can be arrived at, the decision made previously by the organisation needs to be accepted and the focus has to be on whether or not the circumstances are different now to what they were when the original decision was made and as identified by the Case Officer in the report there has been no change in circumstances on this application so this should be steering members towards refusing it.

·       Councillor Hicks expressed confusion as if officers are saying members cannot vote a certain way why is the application being debated. Nick Harding responded that the reason why the application is before members today is due to the Scheme of Delegation and committee may be able to identify a change in circumstances that officers have not been able to and officers will provide guidance and feedback on whether or not anything identified is a material planning consideration. He referred again to the Code of Conduct in that if there was a proposal to go against officer’s recommendation committee needs to identify the reasons why consent should be granted and identify what has changed since the previous application so last time committee agreed it was an elsewhere location and by default it did not meet policy so what is it that now changes this if anything.

·       Councillor Benney stated that there is a different committee and it is the committee that makes the decision here, members get a recommendation from officers and it is not that members are going against officers it is just that things are being interpreted differently and it is down to the members of the committee to make that decision, which is how the system works. He made the point that members are told every time that every application is judged on its own merits and the previous application was for 3 and this is for 2 so, in his view, there are fundamental changes to the application and he cannot remember on the previous application if the Parish Council supported it or not but Doddington is very vocal on what they as a council wants and it usually says if it does not want something.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to consistency and the Planning Officer has been consistent throughout the last 2-3 applications and, therefore, he is finding it very difficult to change his view on what the officer is recommending even though he is very supportive of Doddington Parish Council and it now being a 2 house development, which he feels would fit in, but he is being guided by officers and their recommendation.

·       David Rowen stated that it is important in the terms of consistency to look back to the previous refusal of planning permission, which was not on the basis of it being a 3 house scheme and was on the basis of the principle of development being unacceptable in this location and the view of officers is that there are no material change in circumstances. He added that Mr Humphrey has referred to the Field Ends Water Caravan Site and the development that has been allowed there but that is an accepted exception in the local and national policies to allow tourism development in rural locations and that development existed at the time of the previous refusal.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Rackley that the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, which did not receive support from the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with delegated authority given to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the location is part of Doddington, does not lie in the open countryside and would not be detrimental to or harm the character of the area.