Proposed erection of 30 no. new dwellings including 10 affordable units and associated works to provide a new access and road.

The Committee approved the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He referred to additional representations set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Vaughan, Chairman of Pyons Group Parish Council spoke.  He opposed the application.  Mrs McLeod, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He referred to the planning history of the site and the grounds on which previous applications had been refused, as described in the report.  He supported the Parish Council’s comments in opposition to the application, as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·         The Pyons Group Parish Council supported expansion of the village but not in the location proposed.  A Neighbourhood Plan was being produced proposing development in the centre of the village.  It would be contrary to democracy and the localism agenda to approve the application and detrimental to community engagement.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The application was basically the same as the one rejected by the Committee in May 2013, with the addition of a hydrology report, and the Committee should reject the application.

·         There was support for the opposition to the proposal advanced by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, as set out in section 5 of the report.

·         Canon Pyon was a linear settlement and the proposed development would not be out of place.

·         One Member commented that whilst there was still uncertainty over the hydrology, the proposed condition set out in the recommendation addressed this concern.  Some other Members commented that the concerns over flooding were significant enough to continue to be grounds for rejecting the application.

·         The Parish Council’s plans, whilst in preparation, lacked any material planning status.

·         Brownfield sites should be developed first.

·         The application should be rejected on the grounds of policies H8, S1, DR1 and DR4.

The Development Manager confirmed that the Council was short of the required five year housing land supply. The Secretary of State for Communities had stated that in the absence of a five year land supply he would grant planning applications for housing development and had done so even in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Land Drainage Officer did not object on the principle of flooding or drainage grounds, subject to the approval of surface water drainage scheme.

The Council’s Legal Officer, as a general point, reminded the Committee that any decision contrary to officer recommendation would require sufficient and relevant reasons in support.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the application and his support for the Parish Council’s plans to meet housing needs.

A motion that the application be refused was lost.  A motion that the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was carried.

RESOLVED:

That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to:

1.         The completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report.

2.         The conditions set out in this report and any varied or additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

INFORMATIVES: