Issue - meetings

Brookside, Whams Lane, Bay Horse

Meeting: 19/09/2016 - Planning Regulatory Committee (Item 64)

64 Brookside, Whams Lane, Bay Horse pdf icon PDF 342 KB

Demolition of agricultural building, erection of a detached residential dwelling, a garage/workshop, installation of solar array panel and erection of two polytunnels for
Mr Ken Parker

Minutes:

A6

16/00570/FUL

Demolition of agricultural building, erection of a detached residential dwelling, a garage/workshop, installation of solar array panel and erection of two polytunnels for Mr Ken Parker

Ellel Ward

R

 

Under the scheme of public participation, Councillor Susie Charles spoke in support of the application.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor Andrew Kay:

 

“That the application be approved.”

 

(The proposal was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation that the application be refused).

 

Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 8 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

 

It was then proposed by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Eileen Blamire:

 

“That the application be refused.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 8 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 6 against, whereupoin the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

 

Resolved:

 

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.

The site is located within Whams Lane in a central position of existing ribbon development in the rural hamlet of Bay Horse. Bay Horse contains minimal key services and as such is not considered to be sustainable in terms of its location. The site does not have immediate and direct access to key services and infrastructure and would realistically only be accessible by using a private car.  In addition it has not been demonstrated that the development would enhance or maintain the vitality of the local community or help sustain services in nearby settlements.  There has been no exceptional justification provided to support this development in an unsustainable rural location such as an existing agricultural or forestry need. As such the proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the Core Planning Principles, and does not fall within any of the circumstances set out in Paragraph 55, Core Strategy policy SC1, and Policies DM20 (criteria ll) and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document.

 

2.

The proposed polytunnels, by virtue of their size, scale and footprint, will be a dominant feature in the wider landscape and will be an unneighbourly feature at relatively close proximity to the nearest neighbouring dwelling (Oak Villa).  As a consequence they are considered to represent inappropriate development by virtue of the impact upon Oak Villa and are therefore considered contrary to policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD and the provisions of paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.