Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Terrace of three 3-bed dwellings including creation of vehicular access off Picknage Road, parking and landscaping.

RESOLVED: That application 23/02948/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 25 minutes 35 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer advised there were no updates to provide and presented the report in respect of application 23/02948/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to questions from Councillor Ruth Brown, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·       There were light tunnels proposed to be installed in the roof of the middle dwelling to allow natural light into the ensuite and bathroom, as these did not have external walls.

·       Permitted development rights had been removed, so any extension into the loft space would require further planning permission.

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Yvonne Lee to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       Barley was a small settlement with fewer than 700 residents. However, it was considered a Category A village in planning terms.

·       There had been a long Local Plan process which had considered this site for housing, but this was rejected by the Council partly due to its location in the Conservation Area.

·       No sites had been allocated within the village for development in the Local Plan.

·       There were questions as to why the site was previously rejected for housing but was now considered suitable for development.

·       There had already been substantial development in the village with a 22% increase in units over recent years. This included 8 units on open land behind the village surgery, which had an impact on the conservation area.

·       Another application across the road was rejected by the inspector due to consideration of impact on the conservation area.

·       It was not unusual for there to be tensions between planning policies, as these were subjective, and it was possible to come to a different view to the Officer proposals along planning grounds.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Lee for her presentation and invited Parish Councillor Jerry Carlisle to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Carlisle thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the committee with a verbal presentation including that:

·       The Conservation Officer was opposed to the application due to damage to the conservation area, but the Planning Officer had disagreed with this.

·       The Parish Council had been consulted on two occasions in January and June. However, the website outlines that the Parish Council should have been consulted further in July.

·       Due to this, the Parish Council were not aware of some changes proposed including changes to visitor parking and landscaping.

·       Parking was expected to be on Picknage Road, but there would not be suitable space here for visitors, as had been demonstrated on another nearby site.

·       Picknage Road was a 30mph road, but speeds had been recorded between 40 and 50mph, therefore it would not be suitable for parking.

·       Parking on Picknage Road would cause access problems for emergency and refuse vehicles.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Parish Council had been consulted on one set of amended plans in June 2024.

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·       The site was located within the village boundary and on ‘white land’ which was open to development.

·       The appeal decision on a nearby site was a mixed use site and was outside of the village boundary, which set it apart from this application.

In response to a question from Councillor Ruth Brown, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·       There were several possible reasons why this site was not considered during the Local Plan process, but mostly that this would normally include sites of 5 or more dwellings.

·       In terms of planning principles, the site was in a Category A village and development was allowed within the settlement boundaries. 

Councillor Ian Mantle proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Amy Allen.

As part of the debate, Councillor Ruth Brown noted that she knew the site well and it appeared to be an odd piece of land with terraced housing opposite. The proposals were in line with what already existed and, although there was a lot of development in Barley, it was classified as a Class A village.

Having been proposed and seconded, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 23/02948/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.