Agenda item

Councillor Margaret Turner had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted that the application was for conversion to one single unit and not two as shown on the plan which was incorrect.

Mr S Lilly speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of the application reported that he had met with the local District Councillor Andrew Crawford on site who was supportive of the single new cottage proposed.  He explained that all that was being sought was approval for two units and that the applicant was willing to enter into a section 106 agreement to this effect.  He reported that the proposal would result in highway improvements. He reminded the Committee of its consideration of an application at the Horse and Jockey Public House at Chilton when the view of Members then was that a car park was part of the built up area. He suggested that there was a similar case here and asked the Committee to be consistent in its decision making.  He commented that the applicant sought to improve the rural character of the area and that the premises had now stood empty for two years resulting in maintenance and security issues on and off site.   He referred to the Prince of Wales Public House advising that this site was not similar in any way, in that it had enclosed hedges and fences and that the Inspector’s comments should be disregarded.  Finally he reported that the proposal was a modest thatched reproduction cottage.

Members noted that the application had been presented to the Committee at the request of the local Member.  It was commented that there was an expectation that in such cases the local Member should be present to speak to the application and that the Vice-Chair should write to Councillor Crawford in this regard.

One Member advised that he would have agreed that the application should be refused but for the extant permission for a motel.  If the motel had been constructed then there would be no doubt that the Officers would have recommended approval of this application.  He suggested that if development could be restricted to two properties then it would be a sensible reuse of the site.  Also he considered that there should be Section 106 to restrict development to two units and to prevent further development of the car parking area.

One Member spoke against the application suggesting that approval would set a precedent for development in the open countryside. 

In response to a question raised as to whether a car park was previously developed land it was explained that a car park was a hard surfaced area and was therefore previously developed land.  However, just because an area was previously developed land, that in itself did not necessarily mean that it should be developed.

One Member referred to the analogies made to the Horse and Jockey at Chilton explaining that that site was within walking distance of a church, school and shop etc. and this site was not.

Other Members spoke in support of the application explaining that there would not be an increase in traffic and that the area would be improved.  He questioned what would be done with the site if some modest development as now proposed was not accepted.

The Officers responded that what was important was the principle.  The proposal was clearly contrary to policy and Members needed to be clear regarding the policy context of this site. It was explained that the conversion of the existing building into a dwelling would be acceptable because the building was already there.

One Member questioned why in this case the Committee was being advised to give limited weight to the extant permissions.   The Officers clarified that when considering the previous application the policy context was associated with a motel proposal and related to issues concerning tourism, economic factors and leisure.  These were totally different to the issues surrounding the current application for a new dwelling.  Also, the likelihood of the extant planning permission being implemented was a material consideration. The fallback position was unlikely due to the current demand for motel accommodation in this location.

By 11 votes to 5 with 1 of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item it was

RESOLVED

that application WCH/1974/12  be refused for the reason set out in the report.