Agenda item

That consideration of the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning & Development Control Committee to allow clarity on:-

(i)         whether the proposal was for 14 or 20 dwellings

(ii)        where the recreation area would be

(iii)       the topography of the site

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012. 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 A.I. Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations which updated the response from the Head of Play Unit and requirements of open space provision, subsequent consultations with the Housing Strategy Manager and Director of Lifelong Learning and their requirements, based on the 20 units proposed in the application.  The officer detailed the main issues which included the principle of development, provision of open space and the affordable housing element and the responses received to the consultation which included Welsh Water seeking the imposition of a Grampian style condition to allow for completion of improvement works by 31 March 2013. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded the Committee of his earlier comments about consideration of the application at this meeting. 

            Mr. G. Bell spoke against the application on the type of houses that were proposed but said that residents were not opposed to residential development.  He felt that the proposed dwellings would be out of character with the area and commented on the 130 letters of objection which had been received about the application.  He raised concern about the increase in traffic as he felt that the number of properties could result in an additional 40 to 50 vehicles. He also referred to issues with the existing unadopted road, the potential overlooking and overshadowing from the three storey dwellings and potential problems with the sewerage pumps in each plot and the proximity of the overhead lines.  He added that the quality and quantity of the proposed dwellings would be out of keeping with the area and the neighbouring executive style homes. 

            Mr. P. Moren, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application referring to the extensive negotiations that had taken place.  The site had been allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council had not prepared a development brief for the wider housing allocation which would yield 87 dwellings of a mix of three and four bedroom units.  Mr. Moren said that the applicant was happy to accept the recommendation in paragraph 2.01 and the identified planning conditions and added that any further conditions could not be justified by national or local policy.     

            Councillor D. Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the site had gone through the UDP process and that the housing types proposed would provide much needed social housing.  Councillor R.C. Bithell said that there was no reason to refuse the application and commented on the works to be undertaken to the road and footways which would bring it up to adoptable standard. 

            One of the local Members, Councillor P. Shotton spoke on behalf of the residents of Fairoaks Drive.  He said that a petition of 130 signatures and 158 letters of objection had been submitted which showed the strength of feeling against the application.  He said that if the conditions were strictly adhered to then the application would be acceptable to the residents.  He commented on the concern about the three storey properties and the breach of condition no. 7 attached to application 034942 which was being investigated by the Enforcement Section.  He felt that a toddler’s playing area should be included in the site and also commented on concern about pylons near to the site which he felt should be considered before any development took place. 

            The other local Member, Councillor R.P. Macfarlane said that the original report had caused confusion but this had been clarified by the supplementary report which had been circulated.  He spoke of the issue of viability and said that the applicant was facing significant costs for the diversion of a gas main on the site. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager said that he felt that point (b) in the recommendation was better dealt with under condition 1. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones said that the principle of development was clear but what was not clear was the topography of the area as the three storey properties would create overlooking issues.  He referred to paragraph 7.07 and said that if the number of dwellings was now being reduced to 14, then the figures within the report would have to be reconfigured.  He proposed deferment of the application to clarify whether the proposal was for 14 or 20 properties, where the recreation area would be and the topography of the three storey dwellings on the site; the proposal was duly seconded. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager reiterated his earlier comments about deferring the application to allow for one comprehensive report to be submitted to a subsequent meeting of the Committee.  On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning & Development Control Committee to allow clarity on:-

(i)         whether the proposal was for 14 or 20 dwellings

(ii)        where the recreation area would be

(iii)       the topography of the site