Agenda item

Application: 2018/0260/FUL

Location: Low Farm, Low Farm Road, Bolton Percy

Proposal: Proposed erection of a four bedroom dwelling and garage

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee at the discretion of the Head of Planning due to the issues arising out of public responses. The application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of May 2018 due to queries raised by an objector.

Members noted that the application was for the proposed erection of a four bedroom dwelling and garage.

It was queried by the Committee if the site in question was brownfield; officers confirmed that it was former agricultural land, not brownfield, and was also outside development limits.

In relation to the officer update note, the Committee noted that officers had not been able to verify all the letters of support that had been received; three out of the 16 had been verified. Of the letters unverified, it had been pointed out that many of the letters were in similar handwriting and said the same things. Therefore, it was difficult to say that they were genuine and so little weight, if any, should have been given to these. An additional lengthy letter of objection had also been received from a local resident.

The key points raised in the letter were addressed verbally by the case officer and are summarised below:

·           Paragraph 1.3 – The wording of the paragraph was correct, the application description needed amending as the layout plans indicated a 3 bedroom dwelling with an attached garage.

·           Paragraph 4.14 – Comments made in the officer report were factually correct. The simple facts were stated and no conclusion was drawn or weight given to the previous consent for the garden use. Withholding that information would be more misleading.

·           Paragraphs 4.15 and 4.21 – These were officer’s opinion. No change to the report proposed. The objector referred to a situation where the deteriorated state of a Heritage Asset should not be taken into account if there had been deliberate neglect of the Heritage Asset. There was no evidence that a Heritage Asset had been deliberately neglected. In this case the proposal would result in the removal of an unsightly modern agricultural building which was in a poor state of repair. The building was an open fronted corrugate sheet building as seen on the photographs.

·           Paragraph 4.16 - Officer opinion – no change.

·           Paragraph 4.22 - Officer opinion – no change. Previous deferrals on the scheme were due to changing approach to applications following the 5 year land supply and various court cases. This resulted in the balance of approval being one of refusal and the applicant decided to re-design the scheme to weigh the balance more in favour. Subsequent appeal decisions and case law further tightened up the Council’s approach to development outside of settlements resulting in the balance tipping against this scheme.

·           Paragraph 4.25 - The report was correct. The Highway Authority required that the footpath and amended plans were received on the barn conversion application to provide this. The objector said the the footpath does not lead anywhere and was not necessary beyond the driveway. However, it was not intended to lead anywhere but to provide a footpath at the front of the site for the occupants to walk into the village without walking on Low Farm Road. It would enable visitors pulling up outside the site to walk safely off road.

·           Paragraph 4.26 - The objector pointed to local knowledge of problems and the Parish Council’s concerns. However, if the Highway Authority did not raise concerns there would be difficulty sustaining a reason for refusal on appeal.

·           Paragraph 4.28 – The objector raised concerns of disturbance during construction, lack of amenity and referred to lack of assessment by officers. Disagreed with these points and assessment stands (it could be explained in full but the report was brief).

·           Paragraph 4.31- The EA were not consulted as this was in Flood Zone 1 nor has the Council been notified by the EA that this was an area of critical drainage issues.  If the Committee were to approve then conditions would be required to ensure the rate of surface water discharge met the required standards.

·           Paragraph 4.33 – The paragraph was left over from previous reports and should be removed. However, SP15 was still part of the development plan.

·           Paragraphs 4.37 and 4.38 - No change to the report given the applicant’s response set out in paragraph 4.38.

·           Paragraph 4.40 - As stated in the report, a Contamination Report was not a requirement. Following objections it was requested and the applicant agreed to provide this. Consultation had taken place and conditions were recommended.

Members noted that out of the letters of support, one had been from Bolton Percy village, and two were from Appleton Roebuck.

Jennifer Hubbard, agent, spoke in support of the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the reason set out in paragraph 7 of the report.