Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 2 March 2022, 13 April 2022, 10 May 2022, 25 May 2023 and 9 May 2024.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 2 March 2022, 13 April 2022, 10 May 2022, 25 May 2023 and 9 May 2024 were approved as true and correct records and signed by the Chairman.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest received.

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 22/02538/FUL in respect of a proposed new self-build, net zero carbon dwelling, with improvement of 2no. existing accesses and associated landscaping on the site of former Cope Hall residence.

2.    Ms Debra Inston, Team Manager (Development Management), introduced the report to Members. She explained that the report had been referenced up to the District Planning Committee by the Development Manager following the decision of the Western Area Planning Committee to approve the application.

3.    Approval of the application would be contrary to the Development Plan, the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and contrary to the appeal decision for a near identical scheme on the site.

4.    The appeal had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector due to the harm caused to the rural character of the area, failure to comply with the Spatial Strategy and being contrary to the framework for the location of rural housing. This ruling was an important material consideration.

5.    The Planning Inspector concluded that the site was isolated and the remains of a prior structure on the site was considered to be blended with the landscape. Further, the application had no exceptional circumstances on which to grant approval, such as exceptional design. While the applicant had put much effort into the design, the Planning Inspector felt it caused harm due to its proposed form and its raised position. An exception to the Spatial Strategy could not be justified. The applicant had not taken the opportunity of taking their design to the Independent Design Review Panel.

6.    The proposal for a net zero dwelling was noted, but the Planning Inspector concluded that this carried limited weight.

7.    The appeal decision was taken only 15 months previous to this meeting and officers therefore felt that significant weight needed to be given to the findings of the Planning Inspector.

8.    Taking into account all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations, officers’ recommendation remained to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined in the report. The only exception being the removal of the ecology objection to the application. If the application was approved, ecology conditions were outlined in the update report.

9.    The Committee could depart from officers’ recommendation but such a decision would need to be based on clear and evidence based reasons.

10.In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Sarah Watts, objector (on behalf of Mr Quentin Baer), Mr Peter Wilding, supporter, Mr Steve Woodward, Mr Richard Rowntree and Mr Vince Steele, applicant/agent/landscape architect, and Councillor Tony Vickers, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

11.Ms Watts addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording:

Member questions of the Objector

12.Members asked questions of clarification of the objector and received the following responses:

·                     Ms Watts explained that Mr Baer’s property, Round Hill Cottage, was situated on Cope Hall Lane and directly overlooked the application site. Mr Baer did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.(1)