Agenda item

To determine the application

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Ian Gowler, the agent and Penny Lee, the applicant. Mr Gowler explained that there is one reason for refusal in terms of its impact and location on the surrounding countryside and referred to the presentation screen, which highlights where the proposal site falls in relation to Doddington and the slide also points out the various developments that have been approved under the current Local Plan. He explained that many of the developments that have been approved are very similar distance to the proposal from the core of the village with one exception being one development of three dwellings that was approved in December which is 500 metres further out of the village and, therefore, in his view, the site should be considered as suitable with regards to settlement hierarchy and not in the open countryside.

Mr Gowler made the point that the site is immediately adjacent to a row of bungalows which has been there for 70 years, and the site was also indicated in a draft policy map dated June 22 and states that it is suitable for frontage development as it is outlined in red and shaded in pink and was presented at a Cabinet meeting. He made the point that the emerging Local Plan has little weight, but it does highlight that there would be some development along this way.

Ms Lee explained to the committee that she has lived in Doddington for the last 45 years and she moved in order to find space for her hobby which is breeding of her horses. She added that due to ill health of her partner, they have decided to apply for planning permission in order to make life easier and build a bungalow along with continuing her hobby.

Ms Lee expressed the view that it appears to be very difficult to find a property in Doddington and she explained that her parents, brother, grandson and late partner are all buried in the graveyard in the village and Doddington is very much her home. She added that the site is on the edge of the village and the amenities are all very good, along with a footpath and a good road and, therefore, the access is good.

Ms Lee explained that she would have liked her granddaughter to live there with her family as she is also keen to assist with the horses. She referred to the comments made by the Parish Council concerning the ridge and furrows and the ancient wells and explained that the ridge and farrows are further down the field and will not be affected and with regards to the ancient wells, she is yet to find them, but she added that if they are there, they are right down the bottom of the land and will not be affected.

Mr Gowler stated that with regards to the technical reasons which were shown as reasons for refusal they have all been resolved which leaves only the location in terms of open countryside and how it fits into the local settlement hierarchy.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Gowler to clarify what was considered at Cabinet. Mr Gowler clarified that it was a draft plan for the emerging Local Plan which was presented at a 2022 Cabinet meeting.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Hicks stated that within the reasons for refusal it states that approval of the application would set a precedent, however, in his opinion that has already been done by approving other applications such as those down Hospital Road.

·         Councillor Marks made the point that there is another application before members which although is on the same road, the officer’s report is stating that the current proposal is not within the village. He stated that an application was approved previously under F/YR22/1149/F and he cannot see any significant differences between that application and the proposal before the committee today.

·         Councillor Connor explained that he recalls previously applications which were approved in August 2023 in Benwick Road and, therefore, a precedent has been set as the application before members is nearer the village.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he is unsure why the application has been brought before the committee when there have been other applications which have been approved and they are located further out of the village.

·         Nick Harding explained that the British planning system dictates that planning applications are determined in accordance with both national and local planning policies. He added that Planning Officers consider those policies and recommend decisions and whilst the committee sometimes disagree with the professional opinion of officers, there is the requirement for officers to remain consistent. Nick Harding made the point that the whole things about the planning system is for consistency and that is important as it assists developers and investors make decisions about whether or not to pursue an application based on whether or not on policy terms it appears that there is a good prospect in gaining planning permission. He stated that it is unfair to be critical to officers as to why they have recommended refusal of the application to committee given that the committee had previously refused it and when considering F/YR22/1149/F officers recommended refusal, but the committee did not accept that recommendation.

·         Councillor Marks stated that members are frequently reminded about consistency and, in his opinion, consistency in this case is if the committee have gone against the officer’s recommendation on two separate occasions which he feels the committee have on that road already then as a committee they need to be consistent with their decision making.

·         Nick Harding stated that the committee need to be mindful that “two wrongs do not make a right” and officers are presenting to members their policies and whether or not members disagree with officers, it does not change the policies and how that decision should be made. He expressed the view that it is never too late to see the light.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she did not think that Councillor Marks was being critical of officers and the reason the application is before the committee is because of the number of representations contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that when considering applications, it comes down to how planning policies are interpreted and that is why a Planning Committee exists in order to look at different parts of the policies and because the committee sometimes choose to go against the officer recommendation it does not take anything away from the officer’s professional opinion but it is within the committees right to overturn applications.

·         Nick Harding stated that, with regards with F/YR22/1149/F, members on the committee should have had regard to the decision that they had previously made, however, for whatever reason the committee did not and, therefore, members should not be afraid of making a consistent decision as had been done before. He stated that similarly with another item earlier in the agenda, the reasons should be looked at as to why the application had been previously refused, putting aside the matters which had been resolved and question what is now different on the actual site now compared to what was there before and, in his opinion, that is key.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that he can see that two reasons have changed, one of which is that highways are no longer objecting and he added that consideration needs to be given as to whether the site is outside of the village envelope or is it not and he feels that further applications have been approved outside of the village and further away from the village against the officer’s recommendation and for that reason he will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the officer’s report where it states that development on the land would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the rural area, and he added that members now know that further along there is going to be a change to the area with building work which is being undertaken and previous planning approval which has already been given. He expressed the view that is why he feels that the committee should be consistent, and the land should be given up for planning.

·         Nick Harding stated that it appears that the committee are looking to approve the proposal on the grounds of the decision that was made on the F/YR22/1149/F application, however, if you are at the application site, the two dwellings to the left are not in the zone of visibility of the site and you would actually know that the development once implemented was ever there. Nick Harding stated that the reasons for refusal are the same as they were previously and that the position of the site is away from the main built form of Doddington adjacent to a small number of dwellings on the side of Benwick Road and the dwellings are detached from the built-up area of the settlement but do not form part of the continuous built form of Doddington. Nick Harding stated that nothing has changed,  and the site is currently paddock and clearly relates more to surrounding countryside and nothing has changed from that perspective either. He stated that he struggles to see how the previous reasons for refusal all have disappeared this time and he made the point that the committee should be making consistent decisions on applications where there has been a previous refusal for in essence the same scheme and to do otherwise would be breach of their Code of Conduct.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that members keep being advised that their decision making should be consistent, and that each application should be looked at on its own merits and sometimes he struggles to marry the two pieces of advice. He added that the officer’s recommendations for refusal cites that the site is outside of the built framework of Doddington which he agrees with. Councillor Imafidon added that he does not know the distance between the application site and the application that was approved in December 2022 but made the point that if you were driving down the road and where the built form ends there is nothing for a while until you reach the site for F/YR22/1149/F. He expressed the view that it does not appear to be infill and will affect the character of the rural area and he can see the point that the officers were making as nothing has changed.

Councillor Imafidon proposed to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation but a seconder was not forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the committee need to remain consistent due to previous applications which they have approved which are located further away from the village and the proposal will add character to the village.

Nick Harding stated that in the event of any challenge he is concerned that members have not outlined why the reasons for refusal now and previously are disregarded. Councillor Connor stated that for consistency reasons there has already been two dwellings approved in August 2023 which has set a precedent, and the application site is nearer the village. Nick Harding made the point that his concerns still remain.

(Councillor Connor declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a District Councillor for Doddington and does attend Doddington Parish Council meetings but takes no part in planning.)