Proposed replacement of an agricultural building with a two-bed bungalow (in lieu of Prior Approval for 1 No. 2 bed dwelling, subject of application 21/00704/COUNOT).

Committee members were reminded that this application had been brought before the Planning Committee on 1 August 2023. Following deliberation, Members had voted to defer the item in order to afford the applicant the opportunity to:-

•  provide more information on surface materials and details of the roadway design/width of the access and drive leading to the proposed bungalow;
•  complete and submit an ecological survey/report for this site; and
• provide more details on the Package Treatment Sewage Plant including its location.

The Committee was made aware that, regarding the background of this case, the application had been initially referred to the Planning Committee due to the proposed development’s conflict with the Development Plan’s requirements. That conflict had arisen from the development’s location beyond any defined settlement development boundary. That situation persisted, although it was noteworthy that the concept of a residential unit, in the form of a converted agricultural building, had been established under prior approval reference number 21/00704/COUNOT.

Officers reminded Members that the applicant had now provided the additional information as set out above. Following the completion of the assessment and in summary, ECC Highways continued to be satisfied with the proposal and had confirmed that the improved access and drive leading to the proposed bungalow would prove a safe and suitable access for the development. ECC Ecology had confirmed no objections from an ecological perspective subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions to ensure all mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works were carried out in full accordance with the details contained in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment. The details of the Preliminary Treatment Sewage Plant were also acceptable because it had been demonstrated that the arrangement would result in no harm to the environment.

Members were told that, in terms of other relevant planning considerations, the proposed dwelling was not considered by Officers to be materially different regarding siting or footprint to the development approved under prior approval 21/00704/COUNOT. The overall height of the proposal slightly exceeded that of the existing building; however, that was not considered by Officers to result in significant harm.

The Committee heard that the application had been revised during the course of the application to a softer, more agricultural like appearance with timber cladding and full-length windows, which was considered to be in keeping with the rural location. The access remained as existing and there were no objections from the Highways Authority.

Members were informed that the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had noted that the application site was overgrown, with some established conifers along the eastern boundary. A soft landscaping scheme to include the site boundary secured by condition was suggested as that would help to soften the appearance and screen/filter views of the site from the Public Right of Way to the east.

The Committee also heard that the sufficient parking and private amenity space were provided, and there would not be significant harm to existing neighbouring amenities, subject to conditions.

Members also heard that conditions were included within the recommendations to ensure, amongst other things, the provision of biodiversity enhancements and a scheme for the provision and implementation of water, energy and resource efficiency measures for the lifetime of the development.

The Committee was finally told that unilateral undertakings had been completed to secure RAMS and Public Open Space contributions.

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 approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (JJ) in respect of the application.

There were no updates circulated to Members in respect of this application.

There were no public speakers on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Codling and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated in section 8.2 of the Officer report (A.1), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and

2)    the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.