Issue - meetings

That Planning Permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since preparation of the report were set out in the late observations.

The officer explained that the application was unusual in that it proposed the demolition of an existing property and the formation of an access without any further development.  The accompanying Design and Access Statement and Transport Assessment made reference to the access serving a potential housing development on land to the rear of the property which did not form part of the application.  A request for more time to consider the application had been refused by the applicant who had stated their intention to appeal if the application was not considered by the end of the month.  Since publication of the report, a revised plan had been submitted by the applicant to address one of the officer’s three recommended reasons for refusal which were detailed in the report.  An initial response by Highways officers was included in the late observations.  The revised plan had not been subject to public consultation due to the late stage at which it had been made available to the Council and the applicant remained unwilling to agree to an extension of time, therefore the Committee was asked to determine the application on the basis of the original plan.  As such, the officer recommended refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

On behalf of local residents, Mr. J.L. Keig spoke against the application on the following grounds: the need to retain the property due to its heritage and the fact that it was already habitable; the range of new housing already in the area and inability of the local infrastructure to support further developments; the detrimental impact of increased levels of traffic along this heavily used route and the safety of pedestrians; and concerns about the impact on a nearby elderly resident.

The applicant, Mr. S. Bourne, spoke in support of the application on the following grounds: the Inspector’s decision to include this land within the settlement boundary which could make it available for future development; contributing to the shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply; the Muller Group agreeing to a condition allowing implementation of the access permission only if the housing development was granted approval; the revised plan having been issued within 24 hours of the published report which contained consultation responses; the access complying with Highways standards and relevant guidance; and supporting information to address concerns on safety and traffic.

As a Local Member, Councillor Dennis Hutchinson had been given dispensation to speak for five minutes, having declared a prejudicial interest.  He spoke against the application on the following grounds: concerns of local residents that this was an opportunist application with no evidence to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123