Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: Item 12: Full planning permission for the demolition of the existing property and remains of bakery building with 2 linked detached two bed bungalows, revised access, parking, drainage and landscaping at Mount Pleasant, Bighton (AFFECTS THE SETTING OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY)

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following matters:

(i)             Revised plan submitted on 7 November 2024 with annotations showing ownership of the blue-lined area.

(ii)            An amendment to paragraph 8 (page 203) in respect of the NPPF to use the wording set out on page 209 of the report and removal of the second reason for refusal (loss of non-designated heritage asset) set out on page 188.

(iii)          An amendment to the wording of paragraph 1 – reasons for recommendation (page 178).

(iv)          An amendment to the wording of paragraph 4 (page 184).

(v)           An amendment to the wording of paragraph 9 – planning balance and conclusion section (page 187).

(vi)          Paragraphs 7 – 10 of pages 185-186 refer to ecological documents which were superseded in August 2024. The requirements of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) were not completely fulfilled and therefore the reason for refusal still stands.

During public participation, Simon Packer and Henry McCowen spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Power spoke as Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Power raised the following points:

·       It was noted that the officer's report described the site as a property, which did not represent what it had become, as supported by the parish council. It was not considered a heritage asset in the village.

·       Councillor Power emphasised her mission to gain small dwellings in the countryside, noting that such dwellings are often extended. She believed the limitations of this site would preclude extensions to the proposed homes and would be delighted if this could be conditioned.

·       She expressed a desire to see the properties conditioned to prevent them from being used for short-term holiday accommodation, though she believed this might not be possible and asked the Chairperson to check this with officers.

·       Turning to the reasons for refusal, she mentioned policy MTRA4 and the issue of extending the frontage. She argued that if permission for the two properties was not granted, it would result in yet another five-bedroom house in the village, of which there are already too many.

·       Councillor Power noted that the historic aspect of the building condition had been removed and stressed the importance of providing parking on-site, given the village has no regular bus service, with only the No. 240 bus running twice a week. She highlighted that a two-bedroom property would likely have at least two vehicles, possibly three, and the site is right on a junction, necessitating off-road parking.

·       Regarding the amount of open space, she believed that the remaining open space for any occupants would be a delight compared to new council-built housing, describing the site as very open and light, and thus did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11