Mr Roger Elliott spoke against the application
Mr Ken Thompson spoke in support of the application.
The report recommended granting permission subject to conditions.
The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:
· Principle of the development and application of the tilted balance
· Visual Impact
The application site related to a corner plot off Coldgill Avenue which is located on the south western edge of Broughton village.
The site is Greenfield but it is fenced off from the adjoining field. Coldgill Avenue comprises as a series of terraced houses on its northern side which occupies an elevated position above the highway. On the southern side two modern properties have been constructed and a further outline consent has been granted for an additional dwelling on the intervening vacant plot.
The site is located outside the designated settlement limit and, as with the three dwellings previously approved, would constitute a departure.
However, with the housing supply position explained in the report and weight afforded to housing supply policies, members were asked to apply the tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.
Questions were asked of the speakers and the officers and debate followed relating to the settlement boundaries and the local plan.
In the ensuing debate, Councillor Cockburn suggested that the tilted balance could be concluded differently and opined that there were significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that outweighed the benefit of providing just a single dwelling. Officers confirmed that it was possible for members to reach a different conclusions based upon the assessment against the development plan policies that retained full weight and the provisions of the NPPF. However, officers reiterated that meaningful weight should not be applied to the 1999 Local Plan settlement limits or the provisions of the untested draft Part 2 Local Plan.
Councillor Cockburn then moved a motion to refuse on the grounds that the application constituted non-essential development, that the site was on a greenfield site, outside settlement limits and that there would be an adverse visual effect to the local landscape. This motion was seconded by Councillor Wilson.
A vote was taken on the motion for refusal, 6 voted in favour, 4 voted against and 1 abstention.
The motion was carried.
Reason for Refusal
“The dwelling constitutes non-essential development outside of the settlement limits in the 1999 Allerdale Local Plan as referred to in the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 and the Pre-submission Draft of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 2 2018 and is on a site that is greenfield and relates more to open countryside. Policy S33 “Landscape” of the Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 also requires landscape character and local distinctiveness to be protected, conserved and, where possible, enhanced. It will neither enhance nor restore the existing open landscape character. The scheme is considered to have a significant adverse effect on the landscape by reason of its siting, creating urban creep into the countryside causing an adverse visual impact.”