Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

- overdevelopment with the associated additional  vehicular movements and substantial areas of car parking

           -  out of character with the existing  development

- the impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers

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. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that it was a re-submission of an application which was considered and refused by the Committee on 12 February 2014 (application number 051066).  The proposed site layout had not changed from the previous application but the applicant had submitted additional information within the Design and Access Statement setting out the design principles adopted in order to seek to address the previous reasons for refusal.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where it was reported that the previous application was now the subject of an appeal which was to be dealt with by way of an informal hearing.  Paragraph 7.05 provided details of the reasons for the proposed replan of this part of the site.  The officer recommendation of approval was consistent with that of application 051066 to the 12 February 2014 meeting of the Committee.      

            Councillor Veronica Gay (on behalf of the Local Member, Councillor Mike Peers) proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She said that the application had not changed from that which had been refused by the Committee and the reasons for refusal which were detailed in paragraph 7.04 should be the same for this application.  The Design and Access Statement sought to justify why the proposal should be acceptable but it did not address the reasons for refusal of the earlier application.  This area of the southern parcel of the site currently had planning permission for the erection of a total of eight dwellings and the proposed amendments which were detailed in paragraph 7.03  included the substitution of house types to eight smaller units and the addition of eight smaller affordable housing units, which had been relocated from the northern part of the site.  She added that it would appear that Redrow did not want the affordable homes in the northern part of the site and this application had done nothing to address the concerns raised.  The proposed communal parking area serving 13 properties was still out of character with the site and would have an impact on the amenity of residents. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that the application was identical to the refused proposal but some of the information that had been contained in the earlier report had been omitted from this report and he found it patronising that the information had not been included.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred that the applications were identical and nothing had materially changed, and queried why the applicant had not appealed the earlier decision of refusal. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that a lot of information had been included in the previous report about the 15% affordable housing requirement which was to be split between the two parts of the site.  As the reasons for refusal did not focus on the issue of affordable housing, the details had not been included in this report but he added that one of the fundamental changes was with the Design and Access Statement.  The affordable units were not being advanced specifically for affordable housing to meet the 15% requirement and the proposed additional properties on the replan of the site were to be terraced units which were to be offered under the Right to Buy scheme. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager asked Members to consider what harm moving the affordable housing to this part of the site would bring and said that this could be an opportunity for Members to review the reasons for refusal of the previous application.  He added that evidence to counter the reasons for refusal had been provided in the form of the Design and Access Statement and the compliance with space around dwelling guidelines and parking guidelines. 

            The Development Manager said that the omission of the information referred to by Councillor Jones was respecting the earlier decision of the Committee and added that the report concentrated on the changes to the proposal.  As the applicant had now appealed the earlier decision, there may be aspects of that refusal that officers would need to come back to Committee with. 

            In response to a question from Councillor Richard Lloyd, the officer said that the requirement for affordable housing had been reduced by the Inspector to 15% for the site.  However, the affordable properties proposed for this part of the site would not count towards the 15% required for affordable dwellings by the Housing Strategy Manager for people on the Housing waiting list. 

            In summing up, Councillor Gay said that the application should be refused for the same reasons as the previous application (051066) on the grounds of:-

- overdevelopment with the associated additional  vehicular movements and substantial areas of car parking

           -  out of character with the existing  development

- the impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers 

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

- overdevelopment with the associated additional  vehicular movements and substantial areas of car parking

           -  out of character with the existing  development

- the impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers