Issue - meetings

To consider application number UTT/19/0484/OP

The Planning Officer presented the outline planning application for all matters reserved for the demolition of the existing garage and erection of a single detached dwelling with shared access. The access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be assessed in a subsequent reserved application.

The application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Loughlin referred to the Local Plan and stated that in this instance she couldn’t see how S7 was a reason for refusal given that the development needs to take place there, and is appropriate to a rural area. 

Councillor Loughlin challenged Gen 2 as a reason for refusal as she stated that there would be no adverse impacts from this development.  She said that the Localism Act gave them powers to benefit the local community and that this was supported by the community.

Councillor Gerard said that he was sympathetic to the applicants and the site, but that he was concerned that by granting outline planning for one house that someone could apply for more further down the line and this would not be linear but back land development.

The Development Manager minded the committee not to get side-tracked by the personal story. That he was not questioning the applicant in any way and that control can be gained of that at the reserved matters stage. 

Councillor Loughlin reminded the Committee that each application should be heard on its merits and that if more applications were to come after this one then they too would be heard on their own merits.

Councillor Fairhuirst added that he too was concerned about  the back land development, but noted that it was unusual to see such a positive community response. He said he was concerned about setting a precedent.  He queried that it wasn’t a proposal for a bungalow, and pointed out that it wasn’t visible to the road.  He said that he was minded to support the application when looking at the harms verses the benefit.

The members queried a number of points in the report with the Planning Officer and Development Manager.

Councillor Loughlin also pointed out that the applicants had arranged for their own speed survey.

Councillor Gerard proposed refusal of the application based on the policies in the report.

This motion found no seconder.

Councillor Fairhurst proposed that the application be approved. The reasons given were that the site was sustainable and that the harms did not outweigh the benefits of the application.

The Development Manager advised the committee to add conditions to the approval, and the Planning Officer advised that there would be a suite of standard conditions added.

Councillor Loughlin seconded the motion to approve the application.

            RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the conditions laid out in the decision notice.

C King and S King spoke on the application.