Proposed two dwellings.

Ward - Hampton Court

Proposed two dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Parry, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Hunt, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor KG Grumbley, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

·         The applicants had been offered the land by Mr Hunt’s employer.

·         The family were committed to the welfare of their son and wanted to continue to assist in his care whilst giving him the independence of his own home.

·         The applicant’s son needed to live independently to qualify for grants to assist with his care.

·         The reasons for refusal were fully understood but the application should not be refused lightly.

·         Conditions or a section 106 agreement could be utilised to ensure that the dwellings remained affordable.

·         There were concerns in respect of visibility onto Woodhouse Lane but the increase in traffic would be minimal and the Traffic Manager did not object to the application.

·         The construction phase would have to be monitored closely to ensure that the highway impact to the local residents was minimal.

Members felt that the increase in vehicle movements to the site would be minimal and noted that the Transport Officer had raised no objections. They also noted that the applicants had agreed to a section 106 agreement in order to ensure that the dwellings remained affordable in perpetuity.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no recorded accidents on the road in question for 5 years. He confirmed that the visibility splay could not be improved as the land at either side of the entrance to the site was not in the ownership of the applicants.

The Committee noted the Officer’s recommendation but on balance supported the application in principle. They had some concerns in respect of the application for a two storey dwelling as some members were of the opinion that two bungalows would be more suitable on the site. A motion to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation was seconded and a vote was taken following the local ward member’s closing statement.

Councillor KG Grumbley was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution. He made the following comments:

·         The inclusion of a section 106 agreement to address the affordable nature of the dwellings could be

·         The dwelling for Mr and Mrs Hunt’s son would remain 25% in the ownership of the charitable organisation who would be assisting in the funding.

·         There had been no accidents on the access for 5 years.

·         The construction phase could be conditioned in order to reduce any impact on the local residents.

·         Mr Hunt’s current dwelling would be surrendered when he ceased his employment as Farm Manager.

The Head of Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Locum Lawyer, noted that Members were minded to approve the application contrary to Officer’s recommendation and advised that a further information report would not be required subject to the delegation of the completion of a Section 106 agreement in consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member.

RESOLVED

THAT officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the receipt of a Section 106 agreement and subject to conditions considered necessary by officers.