Agenda item

Proposal: Proposed erection of a 2 bedroom dwelling.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda, and briefly reminded members of the neighbouring site where the previous committee had granted permission about a year ago.

Mr M Williams, agent, commented the location was an infill plot and there were no major any objections from consultees. He felt it was unfortunate that officers were taking such a strict policy view considering there was no local objection. He noted that other locations nearby, but further from amenities, had recently been approved such as at the April meeting, and it would now be inappropriate to say this site was not in a sustainable location. The proposal would not cause harm and would enhance the area, and he asked the committee to approve the application.

Ward member, Clare Aparicio Paul, noted it was her predecessor who had requested this application came to committee, and she did not have any issues with it being approved.

During discussion, mixed opinions were raised by members including:

·         Appropriate to approve as within walking distance of the town and amenities by pavement.

·         Policy needed to be carefully considered

·         Feel it’s in open countryside and the local plan policies have only just been agreed.

·         Looking at the site feel could also say it needs tidying up, and this proposal would improve the site.

·         Policy SS2 is important but this site is in between other development.

·         Policy SS2 could be interpreted in several ways.

·         A lot of policy SS2 is to do with what locals want.

In response to comments made the Area Lead clarified that:

·         There had been no objections in terms of highways or visual amenity etc, the reason for the recommendation of refusal was a policy issue.

·         With reference to the last sentence of SS2, it was noted that Pibsbury has none of the required facilities as defined in the policy.

·         The neighbouring permission had the advantage of tidying up of the site and so there was an exception, but there was no justification for this proposal.

·         If specific wording relative to this site only was used in the justification it would not set a precedent.

·         If members were minded to approve the application the reasoning needed to be site specific and he advised caution about using a general statement that suggested Pibsbury as a settlement was in a sustainable location.

·         If members felt the proposal had local support then it could form a reason for approval.

It was suggested to approve the application based on it being a small, undeveloped infill plot within existing development, which would not set a precedent, is within walking distance of facilities and is sustainable in that regard, and it is wished for by local public.

In response to the suggested proposal, the Area Lead suggested the wording for the justification could be: the site is an appropriate infill location for a new dwelling that is of an acceptable design and impact. As such the proposal complies with policies SD1, SS1, SS2 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the NPPF. Subject to conditions for:

·         Time limit

·         Approved plans

·         External material to be agreed

·         Landscaping

·         Access to be provided prior to occupation

·         Parking and turning areas to be maintained

It was proposed to approve the application for the reason as suggested by the Area Lead, and on being put to the vote was carried 10 in favour and 3 against.

Councillor Adam Dance wished it to be minuted that he voted against the proposal.

(Voting: 10 in favour, 3 against)