Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs and summarised the details of the application.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The Committee was addressed by Trevor Gill, representing Charlton Horethorne Parish Council.  He informed members that the Parish Council supported the application and that no members of the public had raised an objection.  The Parish Council were of the view that there was a special case to approve the application and that the only issue to be resolved as part of the application related to drainage.

The Committee was addressed by Lilian Elsa in objection to the application.  She stated they she agreed with the comments of the Landscape Architect and believed that the finances of the farm were unsound.

The Applicant’s Agent, Janet Montgomery commented that Stowell was part of the community of Charlton Horethorne.  The proposal would allow an existing dairy farmer to have an injection of capital to allow the expansion of the business.  Members were advised that the application was supported by the Parish Council and the Council’s Economic Development Officer. 

The Committee was addressed by the Applicants James and Liz Kingman in support of the application.  They referred to the current financial climate and commented that they had no control over milk prices.  They referred to the need for their business to grow and dairy farmers having to take on new technology.  In order for them to complete the parlour and sustain a future, they advised that they would need help with funding.

Ward Member, Cllr. Tim Inglefield expressed his support for the application and advised that the other ward member, Cllr. William Wallace also supported the application. He commented that it was vital for the applicants business to be sustainably viable in the future.  He believed that policy SS2 did apply and that the site was located in a sustainable location and close to adequate services in Charlton Horethorne.  He referred to other developments in the village and commented that it was difficult to object to an infill and was of the opinion that the development had been planned so a gap would be retained to continue the landscape characteristics of the village.  He felt that the application should be approved subject to conditions including an agreement to cover money from the sale of the dwelling being put back into the business.

The Area Lead (North/East) advised members strongly against putting a S106 agreement on the site.  The Solicitor confirmed that the offer did not meet the statutory test for S106 obligations.

During discussion, members were of the view that the site was in a sustainable location and that the application would not result in harm to the characteristics of the area. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to conditions relating to time limit, reserved matters and drainage.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was unanimously agreed.