Agenda item

Outline application for erection of 3 dwelling houses with access and layout considered

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an outline application for the erection of 3 dwelling houses with access and layout considered (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 and were familiar with the location and setting.

In presenting the report the Officer advised of a late representation which stated that there was no demand for additional dwellings, residents had enjoyed amenity use of the site for over 40 years and the loss of the land would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Councillor Clare stated that he was against the proposal. The application had been rejected on two previous occasions and he was of the view that there were no significant changes to the substantive issues which would justify approval.

The development involved the loss of open space, although it had not been formally designated as such. There was a No Ball Games sign on the site and it was not a space that needed to be used by the community. Therefore the comments in the report that the land was in private ownership and that public access could be denied at any time by the erection of fencing was immaterial.

However, housing estates had small patches of open space which formed an essential part of the character of an area. This site was more than a piece of open space, it was a gap which opened onto the open countryside beyond. He considered that it was designed to give an open aspect to the estate and as a consequence it was essential to its character. Three houses would destroy the visual and residential amenity of residents, and would block off the open countryside. He was also of the view that the statement in the report that there was open space half a mile away was irrelevant.

The proposals were contrary to Local Plan Policy GD1 and Part 7 of the NPPF. There was no stated need for housing on this site and no planning gain to counterbalance the loss of visual and residential amenity. The site was too small to require a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Dixon referred to the previous refusals and advised that the difference between this application and the earlier submissions was that consideration now had to be given to the principles of the NPPF published in 2012. Accordingly Planning Officers considered that the proposals were in line with Planning Policy. This was a very small development and he disagreed with the comments about the potential impact of the proposals. There was open space around the estate, and close to the site.  The developers would create employment which would provide economic benefit, and this was an outline application with design to be controlled at the reserved matters stage.

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer responded to the comments made. This development was in a modern environment which was not a Conservation Area. The open space did contribute to the character and appearance of the estate which was a material planning consideration, but this had to be balanced against the Government objectives for development in urban areas that were sustainable, close to services, were in appropriate locations and that protected the open countryside.

Councillor Huntington expressed concern about the loss of mature cherry trees on the site and asked if a condition could be included to ensure that they were protected.

The Officer responded that the Tree Officer had noted that the trees did have amenity value but the species, age and condition did not justify protection by a Tree Preservation Order. Whilst some would be retained the scheme would not be viable if the developer was required to remove all the trees.

Councillor Davidson stated that on looking at the map accompanying the report the proposal appeared to be logical infill development. However having visited the site he could appreciate it as an area of open space which complimented the estate in terms of amenity value. The land was privately owned and the fact that access to the site could be restricted at any time was irrelevant, although he noted that to date the owner had chosen not to do so.

Following deliberation by the Committee it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.