Minutes:
Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 21/00602/FULL, Land Adjacent to Frisco Cottage, Hawkhurst road, Cranbrook, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – One further consultee reply had been received from the Kent CC’s Public Rights of Way Officer who raised no objections to the development. They commented that the track was already used to access a number of properties. It was important to note that the County Council was not responsible for maintaining Bishops Lane to a standard suitable for vehicular access. In addition, any damage as a result of private vehicular access (which included access for waste collection, postal or any other type of delivery) would be for either the landowner or frontagers to repair.
Registered Speakers – There were 2 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)
Supporters:
- Mr David Bedford – Agent.
- Ms Trisha Preston – Member of the Public.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:
- Any person using the path at the south east corner would step straight into the private road.
- Responsibility for the path would be the person responsible for the communal areas that fell outside the residential curtilage.
- There was little in the way of Conditions in terms of materials and ecology attached the to the application, but this was because the application was recommended for refusal. If the Committee decided to grant permission, then these issues would be addressed.
Committee Debate and Officer Responses – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:
- A proposal was received to accept the officers recommendation to refuse the application.
- A proposal was received to refuse the officers recommendation and approve the application.
- It was suggested there was a misreading of the SPD on farmsteads. The two houses were described as being like farm buildings due to being completely black weatherboarded. Barns were black weatherboarded, but farm houses never were. It was therefore pastiche - taking from another type of building, pretending it was like a barn, when it was not a barn it was a house.
- The site was on an elevated position which made for greater visibility.
- In addition, it was not in a sustainable area. Residents would not walk or cycle into Cranbrook.
- It would be inconsistent to refuse this application when a similar application, approved less than a month ago was approved. There were similar issues raised related to sustainability, the AONB and harm to nearby listed buildings.
- It was a small development of 2 buildings that were appropriate to the area and as sustainable as others that have recently approved. The only significant difference was the buildings were yet in existence, but given the small nature of the development this should not be a reason to refuse.
- It should also be noted that there were a number of other dwellings in the immediate area.
- Officers commented that the main difference between this application and the one recently considered at an earlier meeting was that the previous application related to the conversion of an existing building and as such very different polices applied. In addition, the adopted Local Plan, Policy H13 and the NPPF encouraged the reuse of rural buildings.
- The application being considered was not for the reuse of an existing building but to build new dwellings on an existing green field site.
- The heritage impact on nearby listed buildings (as detailed on page 74) was also a consideration.
- Officers also made reference to the Hartley Gate Farmhouse site where an application for 27 houses was refused. The appeal was dismissed with the Inspector stating the site was not an isolated rural location, but neither was it particularly accessible other than by car – The site was deemed to be in a moderately sustainable location.
- There was no pavement and therefore no way for pedestrians to avoid the traffic.
- Although a small development, it would still contribute 2 houses towards the 5 year housing supply. It would also supply 2 starter units that were most needed in the Parish.
Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Backhouse, seconded by Councillor Dr Hall and a vote was taken to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That application 21/00602/FULL be refused in line with the recommendations of the officer.
Supporting documents: