Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.

The Committee was minded to grant planning permission, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, and authorised officers to do so subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising.

(Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.)

(Councillor James had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Senior 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, Mr G Poulton, of Luston Group Parish Council spoke in support of the scheme.  Mrs M Albright, the applicant, also spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Bowen, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The proposed density was in keeping with the area and integrated well.

·        The provision of an orchard to the north of the site was a goodwill gesture.

·        The proposal would create no demonstrable harm.

·        There was no demonstrable need for affordable housing.  The last housing needs survey had been undertaken in 2009.  Two units were currently empty.  The possibility of discounted market housing had been dismissed by the Planning officer.

·        The developer had approached housing associations about the two semi-detached dwellings proposed but there had been no interest.  The other houses could be self-build for which there was considerable demand, or custom build.  The housing mix provided a good variety of family homes, including provision for home working reducing commuting, and for extended families. The properties were not large. The proposal related well to neighbouring properties and was well designed.

·        Most of the materials for the development would come from within the County and construction would involve a local workforce.

·        The developer was providing numerous hedges and trees and a good footpath to the village.

·        The developer had worked closely with the Parish Council.  The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There were no objections from local residents.  The proposal did accord with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        The proposal would enhance the village and make an attractive entrance to it.

·        The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had no objection.

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had commented that permission should not be granted until it could be demonstrated that the River Lugg catchment area could accommodate any potential additional phosphate loadings.

·        Contrary to the Informative set out in the report the applicant had made every effort to find a way forward.

·        He referenced the letters of support at section 5.2 of the report.

·        In conclusion, he supported the proposal.  If planning permission could not be granted at this stage because of the issue of phosphate discharge into the Lugg catchment he requested that approval be granted subject to that aspect being satisfactorily resolved.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        A member expressed support for the views of the local ward member and the Parish Council. 

·        The proposal for 8 dwellings was acceptable and conformed to the density of development in the locality, avoiding overcrowding.  There was support within the local community and no local objections.

·        Some concern was expressed that there had been insufficient explanation by the applicant as to why only part of the available site was being developed.  The report indicated that the site had been identified for an indicative 11 dwellings.  A development of 11 dwellings would have required the provision of 40% affordable housing.

·        In relation to the fact the scheme as proposed would not be required to incorporate 40% affordable housing and the assertion that there was no demonstrable need for affordable housing, the Lead Development Manager (LDM) commented that the Housing Development Officer’s response set out at paragraph 4.4 of the report indicated support for the provision of affordable housing. Low cost market housing fell within the definition of affordable housing and would have been acceptable on the site.  He confirmed that if it transpired that the site had been deliberately split to avoid the requirement to provide affordable housing and there was further subsequent development of the site to provide 11 or more houses in total, depending on the timescale within which that took place, the council would be able to seek to impose a claw back on the developer.

·        The LDM confirmed that if the committee was minded to support the application it was proposed that authority to grant planning permission be delegated to officers subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising.

·        A member requested that all housing applications should have regard to the orientation of dwellings in order to maximise benefits from solar energy.

The LDM reaffirmed that the application was contrary to the NDP.  In carrying out the independent examination of the NDP the examiner had stated the application site was sufficiently large to be developed for 10 or more dwellings and would therefore provide scope for the inclusion of some affordable homes. The adopted NDP reflected this view, with policy LG6 specifying an indicative number of 11 dwellings for the site.  The applicants had been advised accordingly but had pursued the application for 8 dwellings.  Consideration had to be given to both the local view and the council’s needs in terms of housing delivery across the county including the provision of affordable housing.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He considered that the local view was that the proposal was in accordance with the NDP, an indicative number not being an absolute.  He reiterated his comments in support of the scale, design and character of the development and its sustainability.

Councillor Stone proposed and Councillor Hunt seconded a motion that the Committee was minded to grant planning permission, subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising, on the grounds that the proposal was compliant with NDP policies LG1, LG2 and LG6 and CS policies RA2 and SD1 and appropriate delegated authority to grant planning permission and attach any conditions considered necessary be given to officers.   The motion was carried with 8 votes in favour, 5 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:

(a)             that the Committee was minded to grant planning permission,  subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising on the grounds that the proposal was compliant with NDP policies LG1, LG2 and LG6 and CS policies RA2 and SD1; and

(b)       subject to (a) above, the Assistant Director, Regulatory, Planning and Waste be authorised accordingly to grant planning permission and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers authorised to detail the reasons put forward for approval by the committee and attach any conditions considered necessary by officers.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.07 and 11.17.)