Agenda item

County Councillor R.J. Higginson left the meeting before this application was determined and did not return.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was presented for refusal for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Wyesham, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

·         The applicant had provided the Planning Committee with a precis of the last ten years planning history in respect of this site.

·         The property is small and very cramped inside resulting in difficult living conditions.

·         Planning policies that have been applied to this application and the site have not been consistent.

·         The barn conversion was originally granted on 2006. It stated in that policy that it must be capable of providing adequate living space.

·         There was no definition in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) that it would indicate that the acceptable internal volume for modern living standards would be considered to be 250 cubic metres.  As it currently stands, Beaulieu Barn stands at 187 cubic metres.  Therefore, did not adhere to that policy when approval was granted.

·         There was pre-planning advice given which didn’t seem to match with the various policies.

·         A common sense approach needed to be taken with regard to this application so that the applicant can have a home that is big enough to live in.

·         There are no objections from the community.

·         The Planning Committee was asked to consider approval of the application.

Mr. D. Edge, supporting the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Local residents do not object to the application.

·         Some residents have supported the application in writing.

·         Monmouth Town Council support the application.

·         The property is undeniably small and comes with a range of issues.  There is one living area with a sink and an oven.  Whereas, the other half of the kitchen has a lean to extension.  The preparation and storage areas are in a separate room. In between the two halves of the kitchen there is access to a bathroom.

·         Common sense states that this is an unsanitary arrangement.

·         The property is not clearly visible. There is a traditional country hedge surrounding the property and is moderately well screened.

·         The extension will lie to the west away from the public footpath.

·         The 86% increase in size is small in reality due to the current size of the property.

·         Local people are comfortable with the proposed extension.

·         A flexible, common sense approach needed to be taken in respect of this application.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping stated that there are no inconsistencies in the planning policies and decisions made have been consistent.  The increase in size of the proposed property does not justify going against planning policy and decisions should be made in accordance with the Local Development Plan (LDP).

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, some Members accepted that the application was contrary to planning policy but agreed with the representations made by the local Member and the supporter of the application in that the existing living standards were unacceptable.  Approval of the application would result in the property still being a small dwelling but would provide better living standards for the applicant.

However, other Members expressed concern that approval of the application would be going against planning policy and supported the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

The local Member summed up by stating that a common sense approach would be to approve the application as the increase in the size of the development would be modest.

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Wintle and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DC/2016/00287 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For refusal                 -           4

Against refusal         -           8

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was not carried.

We therefore resolved that we be minded to approve application DC/2016/00287 and that it be re-presented to the next Planning Committee meeting for approval with appropriate conditions.