Erection of 150 dwellings (mix of 1-5 bed), new employment (commercial and live work units), community building, 1.4 hectares of public open space, community orchards and allotments, play areas, cycle and footpaths, bus stop and pedestrian crossing.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

Members had asked for clarification on a number of points at the recent Planning Committee Site Inspection. The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·         The distance from the development to the community centre and shop was 600m, the distance to the Doctors’ Surgery and school was less than 150 metres.

·         The land transfer to the housing association had been put on hold pending the outcome of the proposed application and an additional appeal for 35 dwellings at Kingstone.

·         The proposed cladding, Cedar and UK grown Douglas Fir, would have a life span of approximately 60 years.

·         The Passivhaus standard was the most rigorous in Europe and resulted in heating costs of £70 per year.

·         There were currently 470 households in Kingstone and the population, based upon average occupancy of 2.3 persons, was estimated at 1081 people, making it the fifth largest village in the County.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Wright, representing Kingstone and Thruxton Parish Council and Mr Barton, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hines and Mr Murrin-Earp, the applicant and a supporter, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JF Knipe, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The local residents were unhappy with the application with 95% of local people in objection to it.

·         A freedom of information request had identified that £3000 had been paid to the Planning Department in 2011 for pre-application advice.

·         Reference had also been made in the report to CIL contributions to the Council.

·         Surprised that officers had not declared an interest in the application.

·         Further concerned that it appeared that the case officer was reviewing his own work.

·         The local MP had also stated that the application had been handled incorrectly.

·         A comment was made regarding an email exchange between the case officer and the Housing Development Manager, with particular mention made of the informal tone of the correspondence.

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman interjected on three occasions to advise the local ward member in respect of comments made about the case officer. The local ward member was further advised to limit his comments to matters regarding the application. Following the advice from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman the local ward member made the following comments:

·         35 new homes in the area had been refused by the Planning Committee recently.

·         The reasons given for refusing the previous application in Kingstone included; the application was outside of the settlement boundary; the application did not satisfy the exceptional criteria as set out in the NPPF; the application was contrary to 3,5 and 6 of policy H10 of the UDP; the proposed development was a mixed development; the application was deficient in terms of paragraph 14 of the NPPF; the impact would outweigh the benefits of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

Erection of 150 dwellings (mix of 1-5 bed), new employment (commercial and live work units), community building, 1.4 hectares of public open space, community orchards and allotments, play areas, cycle and footpaths, bus stop and pedestrian crossing.