Issue - meetings

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of lack of provision of affordable housing; insufficient level of residential density and an inappropriate mix of housing type. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Hilary McGuill returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision by the Chairman.

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.  Councillor Hilary McGuill, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

            The officer explained that the application was deferred at the meeting on 20^th July 2016 pending clarification of some matters.  The application was subsequently deferred on 7^th September 2016.

That information was now contained in the report before the Committee.  He added that concerns had been raised that a direct footpath link between the site and the footpath that ran to the south of the site was not provided for within the scheme.  He explained that access to the footpath and the play area beyond could be obtained via the link from the southern end of Argoed Avenue to the east of the site.  That link was within easy walking distance of the site and did not involve any need to cross any major roads.  He added that the introduction of a footpath link in the southern part of the site would result in a further reduction of the dwellings.

On density, he explained that the site was proposed to be developed in compliance with Policy HSG8 and at a density that reflected the density of nearby and recently approved developments.

The Councils Housing Strategy Manager had commented on the issue of affordable housing in that the demand for intermediate affordable housing was minimal in New Brighton and therefore affordable housing provision should not be sought in this scheme.

Councillor Sara Parker, as the local Member, spoke in support of the application which she felt would benefit the village.  She welcomed the proposed development of the site which had not received any opposition from local residents.  She also concurred with the view that affordable housing was not required on the site.  She provided reassurance to the Committee that the bungalow on the site would not be developed as part of the application.

Mr White spoke against the application on the following basis: he did not accept that the introduction of a footpath link to the southern part of the site would reduce the number of dwellings; it was unacceptable for school children to walk around the perimeter of the site as opposed to the inclusion of a 20 metre footpath. 

Mr Connolly spoke in support of the application based on the following:  paragraph 7.21 of the report referred to the size of site which was incorrect as it included the part of the site which was occupied by the owner of the bungalow; there had never been any intention of that home being part of the proposed development therefore, the size of the site was 0.94 hectares - this meant that affordable housing was not required on the development; the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81