Agenda item

Outline application for residential development including the formation of vehicle access

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an outline application for residential development including the formation of vehicle access (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor A Turner, local Member addressed the Committee in support of the application. He advised that the site had steadily deteriorated over the last couple of years and was in need of development. The proposals would help to improve the appearance of the area. He asked Members to note that the objections submitted were from the residents of Evenwood, not Evenwood Gate, and also asked the Committee to take into account the petition received in support of the application.

J Lavender, the Applicant’s Agent stated that when the outline application was refused in May 2012 the scale of the development had been considered inappropriate. This was an outline application for fewer properties and the overall number of dwellings and design details could be negotiated. At that time it had not been possible to bring forward a scheme including the derelict former public house, and he outlined the reasons why this was not possible now.

Mr Fenwick, the applicant stated that the proposals had been well received by local residents and shops. Village life was in decline and the NPPF was about sustainability and about local people making decisions. This development would help maintain the sustainability of the village and could help to support the local school which was not at full capacity. The site itself had suffered anti- social behaviour for many years.

The local village had lost a shop, a newsagents and a public house. Local  people had left the area and were unable to move back into the village because of the lack of available housing. He believed that this development would help to create a vibrant and prosperous Evenwood Gate, and help people to return to the village.     

In response to a question from Councillor Huntington regarding the 2 schemes, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applications had to be dealt with separately, although a joint application excluding the land to the north of this site would be welcomed.

Councillor Richardson considered that the application should be approved. The density of the site had been reduced, the school and the shops were within a reasonable distance, and whilst the majority of the site was situated in open countryside, he was of the view that the whole site was scrubland and was unlikely to be used for the purposes of agriculture for forestry. He also considered that the proposals were in keeping with the linear form of Evenwood Gate.

Councillor Clare stated that whilst he agreed with the comments of Councillor Richardson, it should be borne in mind that the majority of the development was outside development limits, and that an appeal decision that had concluded that Evenwood Gate was not a sustainable location should carry significant weight in the determination of the application. It may be argued that the need for regeneration of the village outweighed the development of land in the open countryside, however in taking into account the public responses there was clearly support for the application but there was also a lot of residents who were against the proposals. On balance he felt that he could not support the development.

Councillor Davidson commented that the scheme was largely unchanged since refusal of outline permission in 2012 and was not convinced that the development would result in an influx of people moving into or returning to the village.   Taking into account the comments in the report about sustainable development and the location of the village it was clear that Evenwood Gate did not meet NPPF criteria in terms of sustainability.

Members discussed the proposals and noted that whilst this was an outline application there was no provision for on-site public open space/play or a Section 106 contribution towards off-site provision, and that the Archaeology Section considered that there should have been further archaeological evaluation prior to determination.

Councillor Richardson moved and was seconded by Councillor Morrison that the application be approved subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of off-site open space/play provision, and to detailed conditions being agreed in consultation with the Chairman.

Following a vote the motion was unsuccessful and it was moved by Councillor Davidson and seconded by Councillor Clare that the application be refused.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.