Agenda item

Application Proposal: Erection of two detached dwellinghouses, formation of access and associated works

The Specialist – Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and explained that the application was a resubmission of a previous application that had been refused on the grounds of landscape character issues and harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed church.  With the aid of a powerpoint presentation he outlined the application site and surrounding area and referred to the key considerations.  Following refusal of the previous application, pre-application discussions were held with the applicant to negotiate a revised scheme to allow space to the eastern side of the development.  The proposed dwellings were mostly single storey with some one and a half storey sections to the buildings.  The aim of the design was to try and achieve a more informal proposal.  He recommended approval of the application subject to conditions.

In response to questions, members were informed of the following:

·         The East Chinnock Village Housing Survey was a material consideration and could be given some weight but was not sufficient to be a determining factor. Each proposal should be judged on its individual merits

·         There were no development boundary limits within the Local Plan

·         East Chinnock was considered to be an acceptable location and had a basic range of facilities

·         A small amount of appropriate development was considered acceptable

·         The benefits of providing dwellings in the location was based on housing need regardless of size

·         Key changes to the application from the previous application included single and one and a half dwellings located more to the western side of the plot with an open space to the east.  With the proposed changes the officer did not consider there to be sufficient landscape harm to recommend refusal

Ward Member, Councillor Ric Pallister read out the Landscape Officer’s comments submitted in regard to the previous application and commented that policies had not changed since 2016.  He felt that the proposed properties would be an extension into the open countryside and would impact upon the setting of the church and the village.  He was unable to support the application on the same grounds that the original application was refused.

During the discussion, some members felt that the application was just as harmful to the landscape character of the area.  It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the same grounds as the previous refusal as outlined on page 34 of the agenda report.  On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried by 8 votes in favour and 3 against.