Issue - meetings

That conditional planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) and a Section 106 Agreement, Unilateral Undertaking or earlier payment to secure the following:-

The sum of £1,100 per dwelling to enhance toddler play facilities at Queens Way play area.

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within two months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to refuse the application.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

In presenting the report, the officer explained that this was a full planning application for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and gardens.  Reference was made to a nearby previous application for four dwellings which was the subject of a forthcoming appeal.  Although outside the settlement boundary, the proposed development was situated adjacent to a Category B settlement in a highly sustainable location with no scope for further encroachment on the open countryside.  The scheme also contributed to a mix of housing types in the area, together with the medical centre adjacent to the site.  The principles of the development were considered acceptable with no requirement for a local need test due to the location adjacent to a Category B settlement and its modest contribution towards the five year supply.

As the agent, Mr. D. McChesney explained that the site had originally formed part of the development proposals for the medical centre and having been deemed surplus to requirements, had been included in various subsequent planning applications.  He therefore felt it was important to view the application in the context of the medical centre and that its contribution towards the five year land supply was a material consideration outweighing the location outside the settlement boundary.  He said that the scheme was viable and sustainable, and that the site was completely land-locked and posed only limited harm to the open countryside.  Planning permission previously granted on the site demonstrated its viability for development.  He said that the proposals presented no impact to Wat’s Dyke and would contribute towards identified local housing need with a design in keeping with the area.  He described the development as a logical extension to the settlement pattern with access to local amenities and safe vehicular movement within the site.

Councillor Mike Peers’ proposal that planning permission be refused was duly seconded.  He referred to the refusal of a similar application considered at the March meeting which was also outside the settlement boundary.  He felt that the application should not be considered in the same context as the medical centre, which adhered to GEN3, and that this application was not an infill development as it extended to outside the settlement boundary.  He pointed out that the site had no access points and that the requirements of the UDP in terms of housing policies and TAN1 should be a material consideration and not outweighed by the position on a five year supply.

As Local Member, Councillor Tim Newhouse spoke against the proposals.  He referred to the unanimous decision made by the Committee in March to reject the application for four houses at the northern end of the site as this was outside the settlement boundary.  He said that the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42