The Chair set out that he would be varying the order of business so that the Committee would first consider Planning Application 2021/0816/FUL so that the Ward Member could speak prior to a further engagement, and the remaining business would be considered in the order set out on the agenda.

Report No.163/2021 was received from the Strategic Director of Places.

Item 4 – 2021/0816/FUL – Land to the South of Teigh Road, Market Overton. Proposed construction of 2 no. dwellings, new vehicular access and associated works including demolition of existing buildings and foul water disposal.

(Parish: Market Overton; Ward: Cottesmore)

Paul Milne, Planning Officer, addressed to Committee and gave an executive summary of the application, recommending refusal subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Prior to the debate, the Committee received deputations from Richard Lees as a member of the public opposed to the application, Councillor S Harvey as the Ward Member, and Richard Evans as the applicant. The Committee also had the opportunity to ask questions of these speakers with Richard Evans supported by Roy Hammond as the agent for the application.

In response to a query raised by a Member asking why the original Class Q building was not built in materials that were now being proposed to enable the building to be in keeping with its surroundings, Roy Hammond stated that the building was not capable for the level of load required and this would have resulted in new structural works which would not have been in line with permitted development rules.

In response to a query raised by a Member as to why the development had been reduced from 3 dwellings to 2, Richard Evans stated that 2 dwellings was an optimal use for the size of the land, and this would retain the sympathetic rural Rutland development that was desired.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor A MacCartney stated that the Ward and Market Overton Parish Council were very much in favour of the application.

In response to queries from Members around the Class Q policies and previous applications being approved, Justin Johnson, Development Manager stated that a similar previous application in Thistleton was approved, and this was due to the buildings proposed being on a smaller footprint. The Planning Officer had been in contact with the applicant and discussed the need for the building footprints to be reduced but the applicant had refused to submit amended plans to this effect. The Development Manager affirmed that the recommendation was refusal as outlined within the report but if the applicant wanted to negotiate a slightly reduced scheme, then this could be a more appropriate way forward.

In response to a question from a Member regarding the inclusion of carports and whether these should not be included if there were no CIL contributions, Sherrie Grant, Planning Solicitor stated that from looking at the Design Code there was no reason as to why carports could not be included within the footprint when looking at the overall development. The Planning Officer confirmed that the application would not have been acceptable even if the carports were omitted.

In response to a question from a Member regarding the Council’s 5-year housing supply following the withdrawal of the submitted Local Plan and whether the development would affect this, the Development Manager confirmed that Rutland did not have a 5-year housing supply at present and the reduction of 1 dwelling would not have a significant impact on this.

Concerns were raised by a Member that the proposal was for 2 dwellings with 5 bedrooms each and that this was not what the Authority needed for affordable homes when looking at the Strategic Market Assessment which outlined a requirement 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes. In response the Planning Officer confirmed that the previous Class Q approval was for 3 to 4 bedroom dwellings.

It was moved by Councillor G Brown that the application be refused subject to the conditions in the report. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote with 4 votes in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions the vote was tied. The Chair used his casting vote to defeat the motion.

The Development Manager then set out a number of recommended conditions should the application be approved. It was moved by the Chair that the application be approved subject to these conditions. This was seconded and upon being put to the vote with 5 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That application 2021/0816/FUL be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1)    Details to be provided on access, the removal of the redundant access and parking.

2)    Landscape details to be submitted.

3)    Samples of materials to be provided.

4)    Drainage details to be submitted.

5)    Permitted development rights to be removed for further extensions and outbuildings.

The list of reasons can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/