Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 9 No. residential dwellings.

The Agency Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted the conservation area boundary adjacent to the application site. He explained that the main issue was the landscape impact as the proposal would be at odds with the landscape character. The Highway Authority were satisfied with the proposed access arrangements.

The Lead Specialist (Planning) explained the reason for referral of this application and the following application (19/00810/FUL) to Area West Committee was because the current officer dealing with the applications held a different view to the previous officer who had offered pre-application advice.

In response to questions from members, some of the points clarified by the Agency Planner and Lead Specialist (Planning) included:

·         Refusal or approval of this application would not impact on the access arrangements for application 19/00810/FUL . Each application was independent of the other and each application needed be considered on their own merits.

·         The circumstances regarding the advice provided at the pre-application stage.

·         The site gently sloped away towards the existing houses however it was not considered to be of great significance, or to be so considerably lowere to be of concern.

·         Clarity regarding connectivity of the site with the village.

·         The site was currently undeveloped land.

·         The current status of development at Tail Mill.

·         Landscape comments and concerns raised in the Local Plan process and other previous nearby applications was considered relevant and had been taken into account given that there was no longer a Landscape Officer.

·         There was no planning history on this particular piece of land.

A representative for Merriott Parish Council spoke in objection to the application, and noted there was no community benefit or affordable housing being proposed. The Parish Council supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

The Agent then addressed members and explained the sequence of events leading to the application being considered by the Committee. He understood the concerns of the Conservation Officer to have been addressed at a site visit and was surprised to find out the officer report had been written up with a recommendation of refusal. He also noted the agenda report made no mention that the proposal was for custom build dwellings.

Ward member, Councillor Paul Maxwell, noted the application was on a greenfield site in open countryside, and believed if the proposal was approved it would have a harmful impact on the landscape, wildlife, historic buildings of Merriott and be disconnected from the village. He did not support the application and agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal.

During a very brief discussion, some members expressed their disappointment to hear of the events leading up to the Committee meeting, and felt some of the information mentioned verbally at the meeting should have been included within the agenda report.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 10 votes in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 10 in favour of refusal, 0 against, 2 abstentions)