Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  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 explaining that the application had been deferred from the meeting in January 2013 as officers were seeking further clarification and comments from the Valuation Office Agency in relation to the viability assessment. The comments had now been received.  On the basis of this additional clarification and comments, together with evidence and discussions with the applicant that it was the intention to develop the land to the north of the site as well, the recommendation had been changed from approval to refusal.  

                        Mr. C. Price spoke against the application on behalf of the residents of Fairoaks Crescent but said that they had no objection to the development of the land as it had been allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan.  However, they were opposed to the style and layout of the development and he referred to the 158 letters of objection which had been received; to the power cables above the site;and the fact that legal advice had been obtained regarding the access to Fairoaks Crescent. He asked for a layout which was less intrusive and more sympathetic. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded. 

            One of the local Members, Councillor R.P. Macfarlane spoke of the deferment of the application at the previous meeting but said that there were still some issues which remained unresolved.  He supported refusal of the application.  Councillor R.B. Jones raised concern that other reasons for refusal were not being put forward in addition to the reason reported as he felt that this would be the only reason discussed if an appeal was submitted.   

            The Development Manager said that the reason for refusal was the fact that the proposal in its current form did not bring forward community benefits such as affordable housing and educational contributions.  A further application for the whole of the site might also not bring forward all of the benefits but they would need to be reassessed on the basis of a larger development.  Councillor Jones referred to the topography of the site, and in response, the Development Manager explained that the layout had been amended and that discussions would take place with the applicant for the layout of the whole site if an application was submitted.  Councillor P.G. Heesom said that it was important to ensure that all reasons identified were raised at any future appeal. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers said that the third party speaker had spoken of the house types not being in keeping with the local area.  He asked if house types would be discussed with the applicant for a more sympathetic design in keeping with the area.  The other local Member, Councillor P. Shotton, spoke of the need to consider all issues on any future application, and referred to that fact that it was the residents who had ascertained that the applicant had an interest in the northern part of the site.  He also felt that the application should be refused. 

            The Development Manager said that if the Committee felt that there were inadequacies in the layout then this could be added as a reason for refusal but the officer recommendation was that the layout was now acceptable and met standards.  He reiterated that there was no guarantee that a larger application would bring forward community benefits but the need for them would be reassessed. 

            In summing up, Councillor H.G. Roberts felt that the application should be refused for the reason reported in paragraph 2.01 as other refusal reasons could weaken the remainder of any case which might be put forward by the the Council in any appeal.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.