Agenda item

Erection of 22 dwellings with associated works (amended layout).

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina 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 the erection of 22 dwellings with associated works (amended layout) and was recommended for approval, subject to a s106 Legal Agreement and conditions as set out in the report.  The Senior Planning Officer noted an update to the report, with a contribution required in terms of NHS provision in the sum of £10,626.  She added the Agent for the applicant had noted that addition contribution was acceptable.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Chris Pipe, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

C Pipe thanked the Chair and Committee and noted it was her professional opinion that the scheme would enhance the local area and, speaking as someone who lived in a neighbouring village, she understood that the type of development proposed was offering the exact type of housing that was needed in the area.  She noted only one letter of representation had been received, a sign of how much the scheme was welcomed.  She added there would be four bungalows provided on site and noted that Believe was a trusted local social housing provider, known for their quality in managing properties.  She thanked the Officers for their positive recommendation and noted she, along with a representative from Believe, would be happy to answer any questions from Members.

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

Councillor D Oliver noted he had attended the site visit and the proposals seemed to be very positive, noting good access to the site.  He noted the 22 dwellings proposed and the presumption in terms of allowing sustainable development.  He added that he was heartened by the lack of objections to the application, and while there was some loss of green space he felt the reduction from 23 to 22 properties and retention of trees was the right balance.  He concluded by noting that the application was only at Committee as it was a development of more than 10 properties and there had been no objections from the Local Members, therefore he would move approval of the application.

Councillor K Robson noted he too had attended the site visit and felt that Believe should be applauded in bringing forward such a scheme, building on a brownfield site.  He noted the scheme was very good, however, asked if there was any space where children would be able to play.

Councillor J Elmer agreed with the comments from Councillors D Oliver and K Robson, noting that the proposals were based upon evidenced need in that particular area, to be applauded.  He noted he initially had been concerned as regards the loss of open space, however, he noted that an open space needs assessment had been carried out.  He added that on the site visit it was clear the area had no play equipment and was not really used for play.  Councillor J Elmer noted he appreciated the paring back in terms of the loss of trees and welcomed the SUDS pond at the lower part of the open space, which would help in terms of helping with the run-off rate of water from the new development.  He added he felt there was an opportunity to create a valuable resource for wildlife, with a wetland that was safe and attractive, creating an enhanced feature and asked if there was any way to do more. 

The Senior Planning Officer referred Members to the aerial plan for the site, noting pockets of open space as proposed.  She added that the SUDS would be a mix of wetland and general purpose and the proposals were considered to met with policy requirements.  Councillor J Elmer asked as regards safe access and a standing for pond dipping.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the SUDS as described had been prepared in line with the adoption guide, with the guide stating that it would need to be multifunctional.  She added there would be wildlife benefits, however, there would not be a pond feature, and would not be a viewing platform, however, there would be open access.  Councillor J Elmer noted he was suggesting that the applicant could do more on this particular issue.  The Chair asked if the Agent for the applicant would wish to comment.  C Pipe noted the balance in terms of public safety, ecology and wildlife.  She added there was a focus on improvement to the habitat and wetland, and while the site would be open, pond dipping would not be encouraged, reiterating that the focus was on drainage and wildlife.

Councillor A Bell noted he felt the scheme was very good and he would second Councillor D Oliver in proposing approval, subject to the NHS contribution previously referred to by the Senior Planning Officer, together with other contributions and conditions set out within the report.  He noted that curiously it appeared to be the only area in the County where Education had not requested a contribution in terms of school places.  He noted a recently development in the Great Lumley area that contained a SUDS and asked as regards how guidance set out requirements in terms of a dry or wet SUDS, noting he felt any pond could present a danger to children. 

Councillor J Elmer noted that over the last 10 years or so he had noted good SUDS designs that could be safe and provide access to wildlife, noting often the main issue was the gradient of the bank leading into any SUDS pond.  He asked the Committee not to be scared and take the opportunity to enhance the proposals.  The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that the proposed SUDS was of wetland and general-purpose open space.

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) asked, prior to any vote being taken, that the proposed approval motion included the NHS contribution as referred to.  Councillors D Oliver and A Bell confirmed that was their intention.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the s106 Legal Agreement, with an additional contribution relating to the NHS, and the conditions set out within the report.