Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that a consultation response had been received from Little Totham Parish Council.

Following the Officer presentation, the Chairman advised that there had been one submission under the public participation scheme from the Applicant and this was duly read out.

The Chairman then put the Officers’ recommendation of proposal to the Committee.

Councillor R H Siddall, a Ward Member, provided some background to the site, felt the proposal did not represent change or urbanisation, was well screened and did not have a detrimental impact on the countryside.  This was supported by Councillor J V Keyes, the other Ward Member, who proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded.  The Chairman advised that there was already a proposal which was the substantive motion and had to be voted on first.

In response to further discussion, the Lead Specialist Place advised the Committee of the Council’s Policies, and how legislation was clear that the application should be determined in accordance with the Local Development Plan.  He provided further advice and expressed concern with the proposed approach.  The Officer explained to the Committee that if they were mindful to approve the application they needed to address and evidence the reasons for refusal.

In response to a question the Officer clarified that there was not legally a dwelling on the site as it had been abandoned and this decision had not been challenged by the applicant.

The Chairman then put the Officers’ recommendation of approval to the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this motion was declared lost.

The Chairman then sought a proposal and reasons for approval.  Councillor Siddall proposed that the application be approved for reasons that it returned a building to use, did not represent urbanisation and was sustainable, with conditions.  In response the Lead Specialist Place advised if Members were mindful to approve the application he would recommend that this be delegated to Officers subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and the confirmation of conditions etc. also being delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman.  A debate ensued during which further advice was provided by Officers and additional reasons for approval were discussed.  The proposal in the name of Councillor Siddall was duly seconded by Councillor Keyes.

Following further discussion, Councillor Siddall clarified that the reasons for approval were because the application was returning an existing residential building back into residential use, there was no harm in terms of the infrastructure and the surrounding area and there was no urbanisation.  Councillor Keyes confirmed he was still happy to second the proposal for the reasons given.

In response to a query, the Lead Specialist Place clarified that if supported the proposal would be approval of the application but delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and suitable conditions. 

Upon a vote being taken this was agreed.

RESOLVED that subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement APPROVAL of this application with suitable conditions be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and Ward Members.