Agenda item

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/01866/FUL in respect of Erection of a dwelling with associated parking and landscaping, on Land at Middle Wood Bucklebury.
2. Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.
3. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Linzi Blakey, Gareth Jarrett and Caroline Jarrett objectors, James Wakelyn, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Objector Representation

4. Gareth Jarrett addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee – Recording

Member Questions to the Objector

5. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • It was mentioned in the environmental report about the dangers to bats due to the potential development.
   • The objectors were unaware of any reforestation that had taken place since 2003.

Applicant Representation

6. James Wakelyn addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording

Member Questions to the Applicant

7. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
   • The business had previously been a partnership business until early 2024 when it had been restructured to a limited liability company.
   • The dwelling itself would be a private dwelling attached to the business by condition. 

Ward Member Representation

8. Councillor Christopher Read addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - Recording
9. Councillor Paul Kander entered the meeting at 18:51pm.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10. Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

11. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:
    • Officers noted that upon the conclusion of a temporary planning permission, which had been granted on the grounds of allowing a necessary rural workers dwelling for the purpose of establishment of a business on site, it would be normal for the applicant to apply for a permanent replacement if the business was running successfully, and the business’s accounts justified the sustaining of a permanent replacement under that business plan. The section 106 attached to a rural workers dwelling would require its removal.
    • Officers noted that the planning permission concerned for the temporary dwelling expired in 2022. Officers were aware at the time that there was a forthcoming application for the erection of a permanent replacement dwelling. Officers used discretion to not take action to remove the temporary dwelling, as it still fulfilled a useful purpose for the site while a permanent replacement was considered.
    • Officers stated that because the original building was associated with and justified by the authorised the use of the surrounding site as a forestry business and the new building would be justified by and conditioned to relate to the authorised use of the surrounding land. It was not material in planning terms whether the applicant considered the building tied to the commercial business or a private dwelling.
    • From Officers’ point of view and the Inspector’s point of view it was a material planning consideration that the business was on site and the existing dwelling was on site. Under policy C5 as set out in the Officers Report, one of the exceptions to the development outside of settlement boundary policy was for a permanent replacement dwelling in the case where a rural workers dwelling was concerned.
    • Officers noted that the Inspector considered that the permanent replacement dwelling was acceptable. Officers in the case of the previously refused application also considered that the principle of a replacement dwelling was acceptable.
    • Officers considered that in the case of the proposal being considered by members for a replacement dwelling, it was acceptable.
    • Officers stated that there was no change proposed to the amenity space, the dwelling itself was to be sited partially over the existing access track, but not in such a manner as would significantly inhibit vehicles accessing the site. There was no suggestion within any of the plans that would suggest a change to the residential boundary, planning permission would need to be sought for an incorporation of further land into residential.
    • Officers noted that on Page 43 of the report, the land shown in blue was any land that formed part of the applicant’s ownership and control, and the application site was shown in red. The land designation on all of the land forming the application site was ancient woodland.
    • Officers stated that in the previously refused application they were not satisfied with the design of the dwelling but had taken the lead in considering this application from the Inspector who was satisfied that it met with the requirements of the Bucklebury Village Design Statement amongst other policy and guidance.
    • Officers stated that unless Members were satisfied that the Inspector had not in their decision taken sufficient account of the Bucklebury Village Design Statement, Officers advised members to consider the requirements of it satisfied.  

Debate

12. Councillor Jeremy Cottam opened the debate by stating that the Inspector had a different point of view from the local people, Parish Council, and Officers.
13. Councillor Richard Somner noted the Inspectors’ outcomes from the previous application, the Inspector would have taken into account any application that went before. It would be logical for officers to do the same when working with the applicant. He noted the concerns that had been raised, however, it was not the responsibility of the Committee to suggest alternative solutions. Councillor Somner supported the application.
14. Councillor Poole supported the conditions Officers had proposed on Page 14, but was open to discussion to try and adapt the conditions if Members deemed it appropriate to minimise exposure or impact the area.
15. Councillor Somner noted the concerns of the Parish Council, and noted condition 11 of the report regarding lighting, and did not consider any additional conditions necessary to be added.
16. Councillor Justin Pemberton supported the view of Councillor Somner, but was concerned about the issues regarding future occupancy, but noted that Officers had added conditions to secure this. He noted the forestry business had been operating for several years, and the Limited Company was newer in terms of its incorporation. Councillor Pemberton supported the application.
17. Councillor Poole noted that condition 4 stated that within three months of the first occupation of the new dwelling, the existing temporary dwelling would be demolished. She noted that the condition did not specify a timeframe for it to be removed.
18. Simon Till noted the potential for an amendment which required spoil from the dwelling to be removed within a timescale to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
19. Councillor Poole supported the inclusion of a condition suggested by Simon Till.
20. Councillor Somner proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Kander.
21. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Somner, seconded by Councillor Kander to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.