Agenda item

Outline Planning Permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 5 No. dwellings with all matters reserved (amended description).

The Senior Planning Officer, Paul Hopper, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting. 

The application was for outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 5 No. dwellings with all matters reserved (amended description) and was recommended for approval.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to aerial and site photos, and asked Members to note indicative plans and elevations, demonstrating that five dwellings could be accommodated on the site.  He reminded Members the proposals were an outline application, with a reserved matters application at a future date to deal with all design details.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application had been brought to Committee at the request of Local Members and there had been 16 letters of objection to the initial application, with an additional three objections upon the amended plans being submitted.  It was noted that objections were summarised in the report and included: highways safety, parking and loss of garages; impact upon residential amenity; noise and disturbance and overdevelopment of the site.  He explained that a 99-signature petition in objection to the application had been received, originally sent to Believe Housing and subsequently forwarded to the Planning Department.  It was noted there were no objections from statutory or internal consultees subject to condition, save Coxhoe Parish Council, who had a representative in attendance to speak.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that the application was in outline, however, it was noted that the indicative plan did demonstrate how access and separation distances could be achieved.  He explained there was a condition within the application for bungalows along the front of the site, along Linden Grove as bungalows would relate more acceptably to existing bungalows.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application was considered in terms of the NPPF Paragraph 11 Balance Test, and Officers considered that the negative impacts of the development did not outweigh the benefits and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Clerk to Coxhoe Parish Council, Claire Llewellyn to speak in objection to the application.

 

Parish Clerk C Llewellyn thanked the Chair and noted the Parish Council objected to the application as many residents had attended a Parish Council meeting to speak in objection to the application.  She added a number of older people living nearby would be disturbed by the proposals and that the strength of feeling was indicated by the 99-signature petition.  She noted objections included that the proposals represented overdevelopment of the site and were out of character with the area.

 

Parish Clerk C Llewellyn explained that the Parish Council and residents also had concerns in terms of traffic and parking issues, felt the proposed townhouses were too close to Linden Terrace and there would be problems with overlooking.  She added that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, the Parish Council would ask that, rather than the town houses, there be four bungalows on the same alignment as the original proposal.

 

Parish Clerk C Llewellyn concluded by noting it was hoped the Committee would reflect on the strength of feelings of local residents, especially considering the impact on elderly residents.

The Chair thanked Parish Clerk C Llewellyn and asked Councillor J Blakey, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Blakey thanked the Chair and Committee and noted the surprise of residents living very close to the site who had not been informed of the Committee meeting.  She added she felt that Local Members should be kept informed and she had great concerns as regards the proposals for development right in the middle of a number of bungalows.  Councillor J Blakey noted there was a need for change at the site, but the proposed in-fill development would have a negative impact on residents.  She noted that Members, on their site visit, would have noted the route to gain access to the site with a number of speed humps, adding she felt the access and parking provision would not be sufficient and the proposal represented overdevelopment.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted that she did not object to bungalows, however, the issue was with the lives of people living nearby.  She referred to numerous in-fill developments in the area where, when a site has finished, there can be issues of roads and footpaths being left incomplete and unadopted.  She added this led to concern and given budget shortfalls she did not think that the Council would be able to complete such works if required.  Councillor J Blakey concluded by noting that Members needed to consider the age of the residents in the area and impact the development would have on them, preventing them being able to get out and about during development. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Councillor S Dunn, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor S Dunn thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that paragraph three of the report set out the application was in outline, though for five dwellings, reduced from nine.  He added that the indicative layout was referred to at paragraph four, for two bungalows and three, three-storey houses and that had raised concerns. 

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that Paragraph 5 of the NPPF referred to “Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes”, noting to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed opportunities.  He added that in the context of ongoing developments in the area, with 500 homes being developed within 200 metres of the application site there was a plentiful housing supply.

 

Councillor S Dunn explained paragraph 21 of the report referred to saved Local Plan Policy H3 “New Housing Development within the Villages” which noted windfall development was permitted, if the scheme was appropriate in scale, design location and number of units.  He noted that he respectfully suggested that the proposals were not appropriate in that respect. 

It was added that Policy H10 “Backland and Tandem Development” was also applicable and Councillor S Dunn noted he felt that the application would adversely affect amenity for existing occupiers and would not be in keeping with the area.  He also referred to Policy H13 “Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity”, adding he felt that the proposed change of use and application would have an adverse impact upon amenity and character of the area.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that paragraph 45 of the report set out the public responses and he echoed the comments made, and in respect of paragraph 46 of the report he noted that the proposals represented a significant loss of parking and the three, three-storey properties would overlook neighbouring properties.  He added that the 99-signature should be taken into account and reiterated his points regarding Policy H3, relating to paragraph 56 of the report, and noted that as it was known there were 500 houses being developed in the nearby area, then Policy H3 should apply.

 

Councillor S Dunn explained that in relation to paragraph 60 of the report, he disagreed with Planners in relation to NPPF Paragraph 11(d)(ii) and noted paragraph 63 of the report, relating to Inspectors’ decisions in relation to housing land supply.  He reiterated that there were 500 houses being built in the vicinity and therefore local housing need was being met.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted paragraph 67 of the report referred to Policy H13 and it stated that the policy should be afforded significant weight.  He added he agreed and that in his opinion the three-storey dwellings would not add to the quality of the area.  He noted that paragraph 68 referred to the application being in outline, with design details to be determined at the reserved matters stage, however as an indicative layout had been provided with three, three-storey he felt that this would then set the principle that such dwellings were permissible.  He added that if there was the possibility, he would say refuse the application.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted paragraph 70 of the report referred to separation distances being slightly less that the minimum requirements, he added that the community would accept this if all the dwellings were bungalows.  He added that paragraph 74 of the report referred to no adverse impact on residential amenity, Councillor S Dunn noted that he felt this would be dependent upon what was put forward at the reserved matters stage and therefore he could not agree with the report in this regard.

 

Councillor S Dunn noted that if the Committee were minded to approve the application he would ask that they amend Condition 5 to include a restriction to the property types such that all were bungalows. 

He concluded by noting he felt the benefits of the application as listed at paragraphs 110 to 113 were limited and therefore he would ask that the Committee refuse the application for the reasons he set out. 

 

The Chair thanked Councillor S Dunn and asked if the Senior Planning Officer wished to comment on the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the suggestion from the Local Members that all bungalows at the site would be more acceptable in terms of the local residents who had raised objections.  He added that the initial scheme submitted had been revised following feedback and the application before Committee was that revised outline application.  He noted that the scale, design and layout would be considered at the reserved matter stage.  As regards the weight afforded to saved policies, he noted the recommendations from Officers were set out within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that in relation to Policy H3, colleagues from the Spatial Policy Team had considered it to be out of date and therefore the balance test as set out in NPPF Paragraph 11 would come into effect, meaning that if the adverse impacts of a proposal were outweighed by the benefits then the application would be recommended for approval.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted in relation to the suggestion to alter Condition 5 to restrict the dwelling type to bungalows only, he reiterated the comments of the Senior Planning Officer, noting the application being considered was in outline.  He added details would be set out at the reserved matter stage and also Condition 5 as set out afforded some protection in terms of the scale of any dwellings with elevations onto Linden Grove.  He noted that the view from Planning was there was a need to condition in relation to those elevations onto Linden Grove, however, their professional opinion was that this did not extend to a requirement for bungalows for the whole of the site.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that on that basis he did not feel an altered condition to require all dwellings to be bungalows would be sustainable if appealed.

 

The Highways Development Manager, John Mcgargill noted that in assessing the proposed development he had looked at what was presently at the site, 15 garages, and the number of trips those garages would generate.  In reference to comments made by Local Members in terms of generating additional on-street parking he explained that it had been demonstrated that the site could accommodate its own parking within the application area.  He added in terms of the quality, standards and maintenance of the existing road and footways that following completion of the development, that the existing assets would be inspected prior to works commencing and should there be issues of the reinstatement not being carried out to an acceptable standard then enforcement action could be taken. 

He concluded by noting that as there were no highways safety issues in terms of the number of trips, parking or access there had been no objections to the proposals from the Highways Section.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked Ms Morag Stephens, Local Resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Ms M Stephens explained she was a neighbour to the application site and noted no public notices on any lampposts in the area and there was very little boost to local housing numbers, especially given the 500 homes being developed nearby, as Councillor S Dunn had mentioned previously.  She added that when looking at the application site it was in two parts, two bungalows and three, two-and-a-half storey properties which would be huge.  She noted the impact on Cornforth Lane and Linden Terrace in respect of being overlooked and added there would not be that impact should those properties be replaced with bungalows.  Ms M Stephens concluded by noting that there would be a negative impact from the three, two-and-a-half storey properties on those nearby and that from Linden Grove there would be a discontinuity when looking up towards those dwellings.

 

The Chair thanked Ms M Stephens and asked Mr Stuart Wilson, Local Resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr S Wilson noted he spoke on behalf of a number of local residents from Linden Grove, many of which were elderly, disabled, dependent upon assisted living or sadly terminally ill.  He explained that there was strong objection from local people to the application, as evidenced by the only voice available to local residents, the 99-signature petition.  He stressed that every resident of Linden Grove had signed the petition in objection to the application.  He added he was not sure when the Highway Development Manager had visited the site, however, he invited him to visit while refuse vehicles were struggling to manoeuvre and when Carers’ vehicles were parked while they attended to residents, noting one resident that had two Carers visit her five times a day. 

He concluded by reiterating the negative impact the application would have on local residents and therefore he urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Mr S Wilson and asked Officers to respond to the points raised.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that there had been two types of notice in relation to the application, a site notice attached to a nearby lamppost, which Members saw in-situ on their site visit earlier in the day, and Neighbour Notification Letters that had been delivered to those nearby as per policy. 

The Highways Development Manager noted the highway at the location was a standard width to allow two vehicles to pass side by side and therefore the usual services such as refuse collection were able to access the area.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that from the comments from speakers and past experience of Committee Members, bungalows were considered more acceptable.  He noted the access did not lend itself to the three storey dwellings, the issues in terms of local concerns as regards adoptable standards and therefore he felt he would not be able to vote in favour of the application.

 

Councillor J Maitland noted that Policy H3 referred to not granting permission if a proposed development had significant impact upon character and amenity.  She noted she felt the application represented a significant impact.

 

Councillor D Freeman noted that objectors had made it clear there was not opposition to the site being developed, just objection to the specific scheme being considered.  He asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application the reserved matters application would come back to Committee for Members to consider.  He also asked as regards the proposed amendment to Condition 5 in terms of all bungalows for the site.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that, in general, most reserved matters applications would be considered under delegated authority by Officers unless called-in for consideration by Committee in line with the Council’s Constitution.

 

The Highways Development Manager noted that in respect of the access within the site, this would be a shared private access and would not be adopted by the Authority.

 

Councillor D Brown noted that he understood the concerns of residents, however, the application was in outline form and the list of benefits as set out outweighed the limited impact as set out by Officers and therefore, he did not feel the Committee could go against the Officer’s recommendation and felt that any appeal would likely be successful.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development reiterated that Condition 5 could be altered to propose all the dwellings at the site be bungalows, however, there would need to be a planning justification.  He felt that the justification would be limited as there was already one area of the site where the restriction was proposed, with justification as set out within the report.  He added that there would need to be demonstration of the condition being necessary for a planning purpose and asked for the Senior Planning Officer for his comments in this respect. 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in assessing the application, the issue of the elevation at Linden Grove had been looked at and bungalows were proposed in order to be in keeping with the existing properties along Linden Grove.  He noted that in terms of the southern part of the application site, the properties at Linden Terrace and Cornforth Lane were two storeys, therefore the restriction for bungalows was only justified at the part of the site facing onto Linden Grove.

 

Councillor R Manchester referred to paragraph 45 which noted “the site was previously reserved for bungalows” and asked for further information.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the planning history for the site and comments from legal as regards any covenants relating to the site had shown no such previous designation for bungalows as asserted by objectors.

 

Councillor J Maitland noted that given the comments from all sides she felt that the outline application should be approved and proposed the recommendation for approval as set out within the report.  She added that she hoped Local Members would monitor the situation and that the details could come back to Committee as required.  Councillor S Iveson seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

Councillor J Clark entered the meeting at 1.55pm

 

Councillor J Clark in the Chair