Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:--

                        - overdevelopment;

- the provision of a car parking area for 26 cars being out of character with this part of the development

                        - the effect on the amenity

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 February 2014.  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.   

The officer detailed the background to the report and said that the application proposed amending some of the dwellings to terraced or semi-detached units.  These types of properties had already been completed on the site and were for the general market and affordable housing.  There were no objections about overdevelopment on the site or in terms of the relationship to the existing properties and the application was therefore reported for approval. 

Mr. S. Stanford spoke against the application on behalf of some of the residents on the site whose properties backed onto the northern edge of the plot.  He felt that the proposals would result in significant overdevelopment of the site due to 16 properties being suggested to replace the eight originally proposed and that this would result in the density being over 50 per hectare.  The variation to the layout would create excess traffic and would result in an increase in parking problems.  Mr. Stanford explained that his property backed onto the northern edge of the plot and would originally have been facing 3 detached houses whereas this proposal would result in his property and those of his neighbours facing a solid façade of eight semi detached or terraced properties with no space between them.  This would significantly reduce light to Mr. Stanford’s property and would reduce his privacy and light into his garden and would add to the noise in the area.  He did not feel that the proposals were in keeping with the rest of the site and that previously the affordable housing properties were spread across both parts of the site but was now proposed to be located in the southern parcel of the site. 

Mr. N. Arkwright, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and said that the changes were proposed due to market demand.  There was a much higher demand for smaller affordable homes on the development and the proposed house types were already being built on the development.  Mr. Arkwright said that there had been objections about the tenure but the applicant was willing to negotiate the tenure via a Section 106 agreement.  The agent had worked very closely with the authority to ensure that the application complied with the standards set for space around dwellings and separation distances and it was felt that the proposal did comply and should therefore be approved.          

Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He drew attention to the late observations where six additional comments were reported and provided a response to each of the comments.  A breakdown in communication had been highlighted as the reason for the works being commenced prior to formal approval being obtained but Councillor Peers felt that it was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the works had stopped and that it should not have started without permission.  Councillor Peers did not feel that the replacement properties appropriately replaced the dwellings originally proposed for this part of the site and that consideration had not been given to the residents already living in the development.  He felt that tenure of the units was not an issue.  He said that the applicant had permission to build eight detached dwellings on this area of the site but these proposals were to replace them with 16 affordable properties with parking for 32 cars, 26 of these together in one large parking area.  He highlighted paragraph 7.04 where it was reported that the proposed relocation of the affordable units was based on them being more visually related to the existing development within the southern part of the site given the intention to develop a new ‘Abode’ housing range within the northern parcel.  Councillor Peers said that in his opinion, the developers did not want affordable homes being mixed with the ‘Abode’ dwellings.  It was reported that the development now required 46 affordable homes but Councillor Peers felt that 47 was the correct amount that should be sought.  In referring to paragraph 7.12, he said that 80% of the affordable dwellings were proposed to be sited on this parcel of the land and the higher density on this part of the site was overdevelopment and was not compliant with policy HSG8.  He also felt that the proposals would create an unsightly communal car park in the area. 

Councillor Ron Hampson concurred that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and that the affordable dwellings should be spread across both parcels of the land, not just in this area.  He felt that the developer was arrogant to continue building without planning permission and that the application should be refused.  Councillor Owen Thomas agreed with the comments and queried why enforcement action had not been taken to stop the development progressing without planning permission.  Councillor Chris Bithell agreed that affordable housing should be spread across the whole site and that it was inappropriate to concentrate all of the affordable dwellings in one area.  He referred to owners who had purchased their properties based on the plans that they had seen and referred to the difficulties that they could experience if this application was permitted.  He expressed his surprise and concern at the cavalier attitude of the developer on the issue of the planning process to continue to build without permission.       

In response to the queries made, the Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the developer continuing building without planning permission was neither a reason to refuse or grant permission.  He added that the developer had taken a risk by building the properties as refusal of the application could result in the dwellings being demolished.  He added that the plans that existing buyers had seen when purchasing their properties was not a relevant planning consideration and reminded Members of the need to concentrate on whether they felt the application was satisfactory or not. 

Councillor Derek Butler agreed that it was overdevelopment of the southern parcel of the land.  He drew Members’ attention to the fifth additional comment in the late observations where it was reported that the applicant was agreeable to providing a lower level of affordable housing provision on this part of the site and queried the earlier comment of the agent that the proposed change of house types was as a result of market demand.  Councillor Carol Ellis concurred that the proposals for a density of 50 dwellings per hectare on this part of the site was overdevelopment and to not distribute the affordable housing across the site was discrimination.  She queried why a stop notice had not been put in place and said that more needed to be done to ensure that developers built properties based on the permission that they had in place. 

Councillor Alison Halford felt that the developer had been greedy and that they had provided a lack of protection to the existing residents on the site.  She also felt that the proposals resulted in a breach of contractual obligations with the owners of the dwellings.  She said that the affordable housing was to be dumped in an overdeveloped part of the site with fewer parking spaces and queried whether anything was to be built on the site which was to be vacated by the re-siting of the affordable dwellings from the northern parcel of the site.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that any breach of contract was not relevant in their consideration of the application.  Councillor Ian Dunbar queried whether the extra dwellings complied with space about dwellings guidelines and he asked whether any conditions were to be proposed for the site layout because of access and parking. 

In response to the comments made and questions raised, the officer confirmed that the development was being undertaken on a part of the site that was already substantially occupied.  The developer had discussed numerous layouts before submitting this application and the officer provided details of the plans to show the comparative built form of development.  It was acknowledged that the proposals were different but that in terms of the overall development, the changes were not so substantial to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment.  On the issue of the affordable housing, he explained that these were primarily in three built developments of terraced/detached/apartment block but that market properties across the site were also in this form of development.  The officer said that the density on the site ranged from 15 to 70 dwellings per hectare so this part of the site was in the mid range in terms of density.  In referring to the comments about enforcement, he said that despite officer’s best efforts the developer had continued to build on the site but that work had now ceased. 

            In summing up, Councillor Peers referred to the 26 parking spaces that were to be provided on a hardstanding area and said that there were other blocks of apartments on the site but none with 26 car parking spaces that would resemble a car park.  On the issue of density he said that some parts of the site were undeveloped but that the proposals for this area would result in overdevelopment.  He said that if the application was refused, the applicant could re-look at the proposals for the benefit of the residents, reduce overdevelopment and remove the car park area.  He said that the proposals were against policy and urged Members to support refusal of the application. 

            In response to Councillor Halford’s earlier query, the officer said that the original proposals were for 15% affordable housing and that the intention was to distribute the dwellings across the whole of the site.  He said that tenure was not the issue and that 44 affordable units would still be achieved even though it was proposed that the majority would be sited on the southern parcel of the land. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the provision of a car parking area for 26 cars, being out of character with this part of the development and the effect on the amenity was CARRIED.               

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:--

                        - overdevelopment;

- the provision of a car parking area for 26 cars being out of character with this part of the development

                        - the effect on the amenity