Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and the additional highway condition reported in the late observations.

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 which was for a substitution of house types for 2.5 storey dwellings instead of 2 storey properties.  It was not unusual for developers to request change of house types on developments as sites progressed and as a result of market changes.  The Local Member and Broughton & Bretton Community Council had concerns but the officer explained that the 2.5 storey dwellings would be dispersed throughout the site and added that it would be difficult to resist such an application. 

            Councillor S. Stevens from Broughton & Bretton Community Council spoke against the application and said that there had been no mention of three storey dwellings in the original application for the site.  There were no others in the villages of Broughton & Bretton.  She added that the Community Council were dismayed to see the changes to three storey dwellings as this would mean that the site would no longer look like what had originally been approved and would not fit in with the rest of the village. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Derek Butler, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern at the application for three storey properties as there were currently none in Broughton and Bretton.  He felt that increasing the size of the properties would mean more people and he asked if the local schools would be receiving additional funding for any increased numbers of pupils. 

            Councillor Billy Mullin concurred with the comments of Councillor Butler and said that a precedent would be set if the application was approved.  He spoke of the significant amount of development taking place in the area and said that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that a significant number of requests to vary house types were received and approved by Committee.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that Planning Policy stated that a mix of house types was favourable and this application would provide this.  He said that it was not unusual for a developer to amend house types during the delivery of a development and added that he had not heard anything to suggest that the proposal did not comply with policy or should be refused.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that there was no such thing as a 2.5 storey dwelling and that the properties were 3 storey.  He felt that more of this type of property would be seen in the future but he queried whether it was on the same footprint as the originally approved dwellings.  Councillor Richard Jones noted that the reserved matters application had permitted 2.5 storey properties on the site and in referring to a similar development in Buckley said that it would be difficult to refuse. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that there had been some house type substitutions on the site from 2 storey to 2.5 storey and added that this was a common request on large sites.  He confirmed that some of the house types had been approved at the reserved matters stage and asked what the harm in amending the dwelling types was.  The proposed dwellings were half a metre higher than the other buildings and the application did not propose to increase the number of properties on the site.  He added that the site had the ability to create its own style and character. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that it was a requirement of policy to look for variety in a development and added that this application would ensure that a balanced and mixed development was created.  The applicant was responding to changes in market conditions and approving the application would not set a precedent and would not create any harm.  He added that there were no reasons to refuse the application.  

            In summing up, Councillor Derek Butler said that the application was for three storey buildings and he asked whether a Section 106 Obligation for educational contributions could be requested as the burden in schools was not catered for. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and the additional highway condition reported in the late observations.