Agenda item

Considered –

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of an application for planning permission for the construction of a self/custom-build dwelling and associated change of use of land. The application was recommended for refusal by officers on the grounds that it represented an isolated dwelling in the countryside and conflicted with local and national planning policy.  In accordance with the Council’s governance procedures, the application had been brought to Committee because the applicant was a North Yorkshire Councillor and also a Member of the Richmond (Yorks) Area Planning Committee.

The Planning Officer presented the application and detailed the additional information that had been submitted following an earlier deferral. Members were advised that further landscape, ecological, arboricultural and sustainability information had been provided and that previous objections from ecological and tree specialists had been withdrawn. The proposed dwelling incorporated a range of sustainable design measures, including renewable energy technologies, electric vehicle charging facilities and accessibility features. However, officers maintained that the site remained outside development limits and did not satisfy policy tests for residential development in the countryside.

In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committees, the following speaker addressed the Committee:

Supporting the application:

Beverly Booth – agent for the applicant.

Members engaged in a detailed debate concerning the interpretation of policy, the definition of isolation and the wider planning balance. Some Members expressed concern regarding the officer recommendation and acknowledged the policy conflict identified within the report. Councillor Foster’s stated that he was minded to agree with officer recommendation for refusal, he could not see any exceptional circumstances in order to depart from the polices.  He was looking to see a building that was architecturally outstanding and in his opinion this was not.  Furthermore, it departed from Local Plan policies CP3, CP4 and CP5 as well as national policies.  He did acknowledge, however, that the proposal was for a self-build dwelling which was welcome.   Councillor Foster asked for a definition of ‘open countryside’ and the planning officer explained that it was a simple fact that if it was not within a settlement then it was deemed to be open countryside and that visual aspects such as limited trees and enclosures were also relevant.  However, several Members considered that the site formed part of an established cluster of development and was not genuinely isolated in the way envisaged by national planning guidance. Reference was also made to the Council’s acknowledged shortfall in housing land supply, the self-build nature of the proposal, the lack of technical objections from consultees and the mitigation provided through landscaping and site design.

Legal advice was provided reminding Members of the need to clearly identify material planning considerations should they choose to depart from the officer recommendation. Members were advised that any approval would require a Section 106 obligation securing the self-build nature of the development and that detailed conditions would need to be drafted before permission could be issued.

A motion was proposed by Councillor Peacock and seconded by Councillor Moorhouse that the Committee were minded to grant planning permission contrary to officer recommendation.

The Decision

That the Committee be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking securing the self-build status of the dwelling and the drafting of appropriate planning conditions. Authority was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Reasons:

1.     The proposal was not isolated and did not consider it to be in the open countryside.

2.     The proposal abuts an existing built form.

3.     A large town was nearby and accessible.

4.     Other developments had been granted near the site.

5.     It would contribute to housing delivery.

6.     The property was to be a self-build for which there was a need.

7.     The property contributed to the 5 year housing supply.

8.     There was an absence of any technical objections.

9.     The property could be satisfactorily accommodated within the landscape through mitigation measures.

10.  The application site is in proximity to a bus service.

Voting Record

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 5 for and 1 against.