Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of one dwelling and associated detached garage to replace existing mobile home and provision of associated vehicular access, parking and turning areas.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

54.11        This application was for the erection of one dwelling and associated detached garage to replace existing mobile home and provision of associated vehicular access, parking and turning areas.

54.12        The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that the site was located along Church End Lane in Twyning and was occupied by a static residential mobile home where the applicant currently resided.  The application proposed the replacement of the mobile home with a detached two storey, three bedroom dwelling, similar in size and scale to the two dwellings immediately to the west of the site that were allowed on appeal in 2020 but had not yet been constructed.  A new access was proposed off Church Lane with a parking and manoeuvring area contained within the site and a large double garage proposed towards the back of the site.  As set out in the Committee report, the application site lay outside of the Twyning settlement boundary, as defined in the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and Officers had concluded that, as the proposal was for the replacement of a mobile home with a dwelling, it was contrary to the relevant Borough Plan and Neighbourhood Development Plan policies and would also result in the loss of an existing traveller pitch.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal must be considered in light of the current lack of a five year housing supply and the relevant test was therefore whether the identified harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework policies as a whole.  In terms of the recent appeal, it was relevant that in allowing the replacement of a mobile home with two dwellings on the neighbouring site, the Inspector - whilst agreeing that the proposal was contrary to development plan policy – concluded that, in view of the tilted balance being engaged, the adverse impact of the proposal did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Although each case must be considered on its merits, a similar conclusion had been reached in this instance.  As stated in the Committee report, there was a conflict with development plan housing policy which weighed against the proposal; however, whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a traveller pitch, the applicant currently lived in the mobile home and had chosen to move into bricks and mortar, subject to the application being permitted, therefore the overall need for traveller sites would be unaffected and the impact would be neutral.  There were no other harms identified in the Committee report and, in view of the tilted balance, it was concluded that the adverse impact of the proposal did not outweigh the benefits which included the economic benefits during construction, ecological benefits and potential improvements to surface water drainage which were required by condition.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

54.13        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that he was concerned about setting a precedent as Twyning had several static caravans so he asked whether permitting this application could have an impact on other areas.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader (South) reiterated that every case should be assessed on its own merits; whilst there was general policy protection for static mobile homes, in this case although it was classed as a traveller pitch, there was a clear distinction in that the occupiers had decided to move into bricks and mortar.  Members would be aware of the appeal in 2020 and, insofar as the existing mobile home being replaced by two dwellings, the Inspector had considered that, in view of the tilted balance, it was acceptable and the appeal had been allowed.  On that basis, the Member indicated that he would be happy to propose that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Another Member pointed out that this was not a designated traveller site, therefore, he was struggling to understand how a traveller site would be lost if this application was permitted.  The Development Management Team Leader (North) explained that the site was not allocated in the local plan as a traveller site but it did count towards the supply.  This was a slightly odd site in that it was not allocated but the description of the development said that the site should be for family members so the applicant had been clear they did not want it to be made available for other travellers.  As such, it was considered that the harm that would be caused by permitting the application was not significant.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 92 of the Committee report and pointed out that new wording had been agreed in relation to the condition requiring installation of electric vehicle charging points so condition 8 needed to be amended to reflect that.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he was happy for that amendment to be made and the proposal was duly seconded. 

54.14        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to condition 8 to reflect the amended wording which had been agreed in relation to the installation of electric vehicle charging points.