Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing agricultural building to provide two 1.5 storey semi-detached dwellings.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, noting this was the first of two application on adjoining sites. During the presentation he highlighted previously applications nearby. He explained that this application proposed to replace an existing agricultural building with two semi detached dwellings with access by the existing adjacent dwellings. He explained the main reasons for refusal were due to the development pattern and landscape character, more than whether it was considered to be a sustainable location.

Mr C Miller, agent, commented the application proposed the demolition of a barn in poor condition and to replace with a barn conversion type development. He noted that no objections had been raised by Highways, neighbours or the Parish Council. There would be substantial landscape screening and the proposal would be a visual enhancement to what is currently there. There would be no encroachment into open countryside beyond that which is already developed, and he felt there would be no adverse impact from the proposal.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, noted that various development had taken place adjacent to the site already. She believed it was a small pocket where housing could be approved and the proposal would be an improvement to redundant farm buildings.

During a short discussion mixed views were raised including:

·         Unlikely to see from road and will be screened by planting

·         Not extending into open land

·         A previous application conditioned that the orchard should be retained

·         Concern at style and layout of this application and feel could be a precursor for further development

·         Feel it’s over development

·         Seems like development is being done piecemeal and so doesn’t require any contribution towards affordable housing

In response to questions raised by members, the Area Lead clarified that:

·         The proposal was not going into open countryside and was within the existing developed area

·         The agricultural barn seems to be used primarily for storage related to agriculture

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 7 in favour of refusal, 3 against and 1 abstention.

(Voting: 7 in favour of refusal, 3 against, 1 abstention)