Erection of one self-build dwelling.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 3 above, Councillor Bush had declared that he was one of the local Ward Members and had called-in the application and exercised his right in those capacities to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 3, Councillor Oxley had declared that she was speaking on the application as a member of the public in favour of the application.

The Committee was informed that the application sought planning permission for a revised self-build dwelling in a location outside of any defined Settlement Development Boundary, where development was strictly controlled.

Members were made aware that it was not thought that the previous reason for refusal under application reference 25/01713/FUL had been overcome.

The Committee heard that the proposal continued to present a visually extensive form of development, with a notable linear spread and footprint across the site. That resulted in a scheme that would still read as substantial and prominent within the rural landscape, failing to reflect the sporadic and modest pattern of development that characterised the surrounding area.

Officers reported that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as such, the titled balance was engaged. The need to provide housing that met the needs of groups with specific housing requirements was acknowledged. The proposal would result in an overall increase in residential accommodation and so, on that basis, it was considered appropriate that the titled balanced applied in this instance.

However, whilst the proposal would deliver the modest benefit of one self-build dwelling and the proposed dwelling had been designed to meet the needs of an occupier with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; that benefit would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified harms arising from the unsustainable location, the associated car dependency, and the erosion of the rural character of the area. Nor would the proposal meet the self-build criteria under TDLP Policy LP7 and the personal circumstances of this case did not outweigh the identified harm arising from the proposal’s conflict with the unsustainable location of the site and harm to the rural character of the area.

Members also heard that, as such, having regard to Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF, the adverse impact of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF (2024) taken as a whole. The proposal did not therefore constitute sustainable development, and the previous reason for refusal was considered to remain unresolved.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer – agency (KM) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“An addendum has been submitted (06.05.26) in response to the Officer Committee Report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6