Erection of 14 no. semi-detached and detached dwellings.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Wareing, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Goodwin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RL Mayo, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The community was not in support of the application with 150 letters of objection being received by the planning department.

·         The part of the site subject to the application had not been identified in the UDP or the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

·         The site fell within the AONB.

·         There were issues regarding the site boundary as set out in the application.

·         There were traffic concerns in the area, the traffic survey was not accurate.

·         The application would result in significant overlooking for the residents of Belle View.

·         The development fell one dwelling short of the threshold to require affordable housing.

·         Consultation dates had been changed throughout the process resulting in confusion to the local residents.

·         The application should be refused.

Councillor CM Bartrum, the other local ward member, also made additional comments, including:

·         The NPPF introduction stated that it ‘allowed people and communities back into planning.’

·         The previous application was refused due to the design, scale and layout.

·         The application was contrary to UDP policies DR1, H13, H19, LA1, LA2, and LA6.

·         The application was also contrary to the NPPF.

·         The scale had not been altered since the previous application and the proposed layout was now worse than the original application due to the loss of the play area.

·         The NPPF stated that ‘better lives for ourselves doesn’t mean worse lives for future generations’.

·         Although the development fell below the threshold for affordable housing, it could still be required if the development was deemed as phased application.

·         The voluntary contribution was significantly lower than what would have been required under a Section 106 agreement.

The debate was opened by a number of Members speaking in objection to the application. It was considered that the application would result in overdevelopment of the site; that the application was contrary to policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan and that it was contrary to paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Concern was also expressed regarding the applicants offer of £5000 as it was not considered that the threshold for a Section 106 agreement was not appropriate. Members noted that if the Community Infrastructure Levy had been in place the applicant would have been required to pay approximately £140,000. The offer of £5000 was therefore seen as insufficient.

Members also had concern regarding the possibility of a staged development, as the current application fell below the affordable housing threshold, and sought assurances that this would not be permitted.

Members continued to discuss the policy issues and stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200