One dwelling at The Hollies Barnacott Nr, Westleigh, Bideford

What was proposed

The application sought a part-retrospective single, two-bedroom dwelling with parking, landscaping, solar panels, a soakaway and private foul drainage.

“This application seeks detailed planning permission for the part retrospective erection of a single dwelling together with associated parking & landscaping.”

“The submitted plans show a single storey, two-bedroom dwelling with external walls finished in natural cedar cladding and render, with a roof covering of natural slate. Solar PV panels would be sited on the south facing roofslope. A new Devon hedgebank would form the curtilage to the dwelling, and a gateway would provide access to the remaining land within the red line boundary.”

Officer report

The site

The countryside site lies about four kilometres northeast of Bideford, beside the A39, with existing ruins, buildings, vegetation and an established access.

“The application relates to a site located within the countryside, approximately 4kms to the northeast of Bideford.”

“The site accommodates the ruins of an agricultural building, a blue coloured shipping container, a single storey flat roofed building with corrugated cladding elevations, a white caravan, vegetable planters, greenhouse and bee hives. Concrete pathways cross the site. The northern part of the site is raised and is retained by a low stone wall.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the new dwelling conflicted with countryside and transport policies, and its limited benefits were outweighed by significant adverse impacts.

“In this instance, the provision of one dwelling is afforded weight in favour of the application, however this weight is limited due to the modest contribution that the proposal would make to housing supply within the district. The delivery of biodiversity net gain also weighs in favour of the application and is afforded limited weight. Modest economic benefits arising from the construction phase of the dwelling would also be realised, and these are afforded limited weight.”

“Taking account of the above, Officers conclude that the limited benefits are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the significant adverse impacts, given the overarching aim of the planning system to guide development towards sustainable locations.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter, a councillor, the applicant and the agent addressed the committee, while a ward-member statement supporting the application was read out.

What members discussed

Members discussed the demolished building, the lost fallback position, previous works, the site’s sustainability, private-vehicle reliance and the applicants’ circumstances.

“The previous planning permission for the site was for a rebuild, however given the extent of the works required, the development was no longer a conversion. Only ruins and an archway remained on the site. The previous permission had been approved in accordance with national and local planning policies which support the conversation of an existing building. This position had changed as the majority of the building had been demolished and the…”

“Prior to the demolition of the majority of the building, Class Q permission could have been considered and fallback position on the site. There was no longer a fallback position. • Drainage had been installed on the site as part of the previous planning permission, and works have been undertaken to form the raised garden area.”

Minutes

Why the committee disagreed

The committee gave significant weight to visual improvement and less weight to transport policies, finding that the harm did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

“RESOLVED (8 for, 0 against, 0 abstained) that the application be APPROVED subject to conditions being delegated to the Service Manager (Development Management).”

“In determining the application, the Committee gave significant weight to the visual improvement to the character of the area with the new build and less weight to policies ST10 and DM06 as the harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

Minutes