To receive an implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration as at a previous meeting Members were minded to refuse this application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation, highlighting the fact that Members at Planning Committee on 6 July 2016 were minded to refuse planning consent contrary to Officer’s recommendation. The application was therefore deferred for a further report setting out the implications of the proposed reasons for refusal. The reasons for refusal related to:
Following the presentation of the implications report and revised drawings, that had been submitted by the applicant in response to Members comments at Planning Committee on 6 July, Members requested that the application be deferred (Planning Committee, 7 September 2016). Committee procedures determine that when an application is deferred for an implications report, that members of the public do not have an opportunity to speak, other than at public question time. Since revised drawings were also presented at the Committee meeting on the 7 September, Councillors were concerned that the public did not have an opportunity to comment at that meeting. The application was therefore deferred to provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak.
In response to questions posed during Public Question Time the Area Planning Officer stated that Mid Devon did not have a specific density or plot size. However, Policy DM22 stated that any proposal should take into consideration the characteristics of the site including its wider context, efficient and effective use of a site and integration with surrounding buildings so that it does not have an adverse impact on privacy. Reference was made to paragraphs 11 & 12 of the NPPF which stated that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The starting point for this application is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
Consideration was given to:
· Previous comments with regard to over development, the impact on the conservation area and parking;
· The density of two dwellings on the size of plot proposed;
· The revisions to the design following a previous Planning Officers advice;
· The risk of setting a precedent in the future for similar proposed development;
· The effect on the street scene.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for reasons 1 and 2 as set out in the report.
1. The proposal is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF, policy COR2 of the Adopted Core Strategy and policies DM2 (a, c, ei, eii and eiv) and DM149a) of the Local Plan part 3 because by virtue of its siting, scale, massing and detailed design the proposal represents over development of the site having a detrimental impact upon the character of the street scene.
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM27(b) of the Local Plan Part 3 because by virtue of its siting, scale, massing and detailed design the proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character of the adjacent conservation area.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs J Roach)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs J Roach made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with planning matters as she had been contacted by both supporters and objectors to the application;
(ii) That in the event of an appeal being received, the following Councillors be nominated to represent the views of the Planning Committee in assisting to defend the decision: Cllrs Mrs J Roach, R F Radford and R L Stanley.
Supporting documents: