Proposed erection of 12 affordable dwellings, comprising a mixture of 2 and 3 bed houses.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting for further information and discussion.

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Cook, Chair of Much Birch Parish Council, spoke expressing concerns about aspects of the application.  Mr K James and Ms R Rigby spoke in objection and Mr A Padmore, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Norris, the local ward member, spoke on the application. 

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There was local opposition to the development of a greenfield site.  There were other sites more appropriate for residential development.

·         The proposed standards for the housing could be improved with an insistence upon greater energy efficiency.

·         The proposed footpath linking the development to the west and to Wormelow was inadequate.  A suitable footpath could be provided if the applicant made available land within the applicant’s ownership.

·         There had been a lack of consultation on the revised proposals.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Highway and pedestrian safety was of paramount importance.  The proposed footpath was not of an appropriate standard.  Account had to be taken of the large agricultural vehicles using Tump Lane, the amount of traffic and its speed.  Alongside these concerns about safety, in the absence of an appropriate footpath the sustainability of the development had to be questioned.

·         There was clearly the possibility of further applications for residential development in the area.  The Committee should insist that appropriate pedestrian access was provided, making this a condition of granting planning permission.

·         It should be noted with regard to the proposal to build properties to the code 3 standard for sustainable homes that that was the minimum standard the Council considered acceptable for affordable housing.

·         The need for affordable housing was acknowledged.  It was noted that the scheme attracted grant funding which would be lost if the houses were not built before March 2015.

·         A suggestion was made that the Committee should defer consideration of the application to permit further discussions with the landowner to seek to resolve the concerns about pedestrian access.

·         The Development Manager commented that the possibility of future applications in the location was not a relevant consideration.  The Committee had to consider, not whether the scheme was ideal, but whether it was satisfactory, given the need for affordable housing.  A decision to grant planning permission could not be made conditional on the provision of a footpath to a standard required by the Committee.   Traffic Regulation Orders were also outside the Committee’s remit.  It would be an option to defer the application to allow for discussions with the applicant over the possibility of negotiating a better footpath as part of the associated S106 agreement.  However, it had to be borne in mind that affordability of the scheme may make it difficult to reach agreement.

·         The Principal Planning Officer commented, in response to questions, that consultation on the revised proposals had taken place with those who had made representations on the original proposal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He supported a deferral and requested that the Parish Council and residents were kept fully informed.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred for further information and discussion.