Agenda item

Field 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby

Application:	21/00899/FUL
Location:	Field OS8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby
Proposal:	Two Self-build dwellings and relocation of children's play area (resubmission of planning application ref 19/01113/FUL

 

(Councillor Browne declared his intention to speak as Ward Councillor and moved into the public gallery, took no part in the debate nor voted on this application.)

 

The Planning Officer (HW) addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application and advised that the Neighbourhood Plan was permissive of small scale development of up 3 dwellings within Hoby and this took precedence over the Local Plan. The relocation of the play area was acceptable. Therefore the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Member queries as follows:

 

·       There was a right of way on the site which was not currently used

·       The Inspector made the decision in April 2021

·       With regard to submission of materials this would take place prior to the development proceeding. The developer would provide details and samples which would be considered on site and the Ward Councillor and Parish Council would be notified, formal discharge of the condition would follow the consultation and may involve some negotiation

·       The right of way access had not been enacted in recent years and was not relevant to determination of the application. Should there be any query related to this access, this would be a private law matter

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·       Stuart Robinson

Hoby with Rotherby PC

Mr Robinson responded to Member questions as follows:

·         Independent Planning advice had been sought on the interpretation of the Neighbourhood Plan with regard to what constituted the edge of the village. In this case it was advised the proposal was outside of the village as there was a break between the village boundary and the site

·         The site flooded most years and suffered from sewage overflow. The play area would become waterlogged as it adjoined the flood plain and he considered this development would exacerbate the flooding problem

 

The Planning Officer (HW) explained that the Inspector’s report referred to the development being ‘within or on the edge’ and Officers had considered this proposal to be on the edge of the settlement of Hoby. It was accepted that it was not adjoining but it met the policy requirement.

 

·       John Coleman, resident

 

·       Councillor Ronan Browne, Ward Councillor

Councillor Browne responded to Member questions as follows:

·       The intention of Neighbourhood Plan policy 14 was for small affordable housing units

·       There was no identified need for this housing

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·       It was felt that the design did not meet policy standards

·       The development did not meet climate change requirements in some of its use of materials such as the installation of wooden windows

·       The proposal did not have sympathy with its location being close to Brooksby

·       Members felt the play area added value but there were concerns as to its relocation due to the potential for flooding

·       It was considered there was no local housing need in Hoby

·       The Planning Development Manager advised that the play area was an enhancement as there was no policy requirement to relocate or retain a play area

·       Members had concerns at the interpretation of the village boundary and where the edge of the village was located

·       It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan provided for small scale development and a settlement boundary for Hoby and there was no formal definition as to how close to the boundary the line which showed the edge could be drawn therefore ‘the edge of the village’ was open to interpretation 

·       The Planning Officer (HW) advised that between settlements was known as an area of separation and Officers considered this proposal to be on the edge of the settlement

·       A Member felt a refusal was appropriate as the proposal was in an unsustainable location outside the village near to the sewage works where there was risk of flooding, there was no local need for the housing and the play area did not need to be relocated

·       The Solicitor advised that material reasons were needed to defend an appeal should Members vote to refuse the application

·       The Planning Development Manager explained that policy related reasons were needed as to why Members felt the proposal was contrary to policy

·       A Member felt that there was an 11 year land supply and the Committee did not need to agree housing where it was so controversial

·       It was considered there was not enough design information in the report and more work was needed by the applicant to meet the standards required

·       Reasons for refusal were summarised as being in conflict with :

·     Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 – the site was beyond the edge of Brooksby

·     Local Plan Policies D1, EN8 and EN9 – not enough information to show that the design of the development was in keeping with the vernacular of the village

 

Councillor Smith proposed that the application be refused due to being in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 and Local Plan Policies D1, EN8 and EN9. Councillor Holmes seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be REFUSED, contrary to the officer recommendation, due to being in conflict with Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 and Local Plan Policies D1, EN8 and EN9.

 

(Unanimous)

 

(Councillor Smith left the meeting during the debate at 7.25 pm and re-joined the Committee at 7.26 pm)

(Councillor Browne here re-joined the Committee.)