Agenda item

Erection of replacement dwelling.

Public Participation

Lisa Baird spoke in objection of the application.

Jenny Potts spoke in objection of the application.

Simon Chambers spoke in support of the application.

Joy Spiers spoke on behalf of Monkton Farleigh Parish Council.

Senior Conservation and Planning Officer, Steven Sims, presented the report and recommended that the Committee approve the application for the erection of a replacement dwelling subject to conditions.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the AONB, as well as the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Clarification was provided by officers that, if approved, three car parking spaces would be required – which the proposed plans included.  It was also confirmed, that as recommended, if the application was to be approved, certain permitted development rights should be removed by a planning condition.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Johnny Kidney then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the property was located in a sensitive village within a green belt as well as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that the proposed size of the replacement building would contravene the national planning policy framework. Councillor Kidney furthermore argued that the proposal would have a detriment impact on neighbouring properties.

A debate then followed whereby members discussed the merits and impacts of the proposed replacement dwelling and it was argued that despite officers securing negotiated changes that reduced the size and bulk of the replacement dwelling, the finalised proposal was still considered too large and harmful to neighbouring interests. The NPPF was referenced, specifically that a property should not be materially larger than the one being replaced. The sensitivities of the site were acknowledged and referenced, along with there being a recognition that the Council currently has a 5-year housing land supply deficit.  However, it was also argued that the NPPF presumption in favour of supporting new housing when such a deficit exists, is not engaged for this particular case given the site’s special protections.

A motion to refuse the proposal was moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin and was seconded by Councillor Antonio Piazza. The cited reasons for refusal were that the proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its materially larger size and height (when compared to the existing property) and the proposed re-siting, would constitute an inappropriate and harmful form of development in the green belt contrary to para 149 d) of the Framework, and moreover, it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, especially No.37B, contrary to adopted WCS Core Policy 57.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its materially larger size and height (when compared to the existing property) and the proposed re-siting, would constitute an inappropriate and harmful form of development in the green belt contrary to para 149 d) of the Framework, and moreover, it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, especially No.37B, contrary to adopted WCS Core Policy 57.