Agenda item

Proposed Erection of 5 No. Dwellings (Class C3) comprising three bungalows and a pair of semi-detached dwellings and associated works.

Senior Planning Officer Becky Jones presented a report that outlined the proposal for theerection of 5 No. Dwellings (Class C3) comprising three bungalows and a pair of semi-detached dwellings and associated works. The Officer explained that the proposal was recommended for approval subject to conditions and noted thattrees and hedges formedthe boundary to the site as well as a watercourse on the north boundary. The Officer advised the Committee that one ash tree was proposed to be removed for constructing an additional access point, and that apolytunnel on site was to be retained.  

The Committee sought clarity on the dual-access arrangements, the proposal’s compliance with the neighbourhood plan concerning the number of permissible properties on the site and the flood risk posed.  

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Howard Greenman, spoke to the application. He noted that Christian Malford crafted their neighbourhood plan about five years ago, and that the site in question was allocated prescriptively on account of the perceived flood risk. He described the contentious nature of the neighbourhood plan allocation, specifically concerning the use of the word “approximately” with regards to the number of dwellings on the site. Councillor Greenman speculated that the reason that no members of the public or Parish Council had come forward to speak to the application was because they were disenfranchised with the planning process, and concluded by saying that he would be voting against the Officer recommendationbecause he believed that four dwellings should be on the site rather than five.  

At the start of the debate, The Chairman moved a motion that planning permission be granted, which was seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.  

Councillor Jacqui Lay voiced her discontent with having two access points, with one on to a busy road. She spoke to the process of formulating a neighbourhood plan and the loopholes that are often found within them. She suggested that she was minded to vote against it on account of it going against the neighbourhood plan, but also suggested she may have to abstain. Councillor Grant voiced sympathy and solidarity for neighbourhood planners and for Councillor Greenman and noted that he considered these dangerous times for planning. He explained that in his mind, the community had been clear that they sought four buildings on the site, not five. He noted that this vote was a symbolic one that would be reflective of the Committee’s stance towards neighbourhood plans.  

The Chairman noted that the issue at stake was whether this specific application was acceptable or not, not whether the wording of the neighbourhood plan was adequate.  

Councillor Steve Bucknell explained that he understood the temptation to refuse planning permission. However, he noted that should the Committee refuse permission on the basis that five dwellings was more than “approximately four”, they would lose at appeal. He explained that he could not see anything in this application that merited refusal, and that because the sequential approach to assessment had already occurred at neighbourhood planning level, the presumption was that the application should be accepted in the absence of any reason for it not to be.  

Councillor Nic Puntis asserted his view that local people were the experts on their area and their views needed to be respected. He expressed the view that the proposed site did not appear to be overdeveloped and that more housing available in the village was not necessarily a bad thing for residents looking to move house but remain local. He voiced his concern with land drainage consents, and desired an amendment on the condition regarding it, wishing for the consent to be undertaken prior to commencement rather than occupation.  

Councillor Berry described his view that five dwellings was indeed approximate to four and that the proposed site provided a good mixture of housing. He explained that it was more prudent and pragmatic to grant permission rather than refuse it only to lose at appeal.  

Senior Team Leader Simon Smith advised that as land drainage consent was outside the control of the Council as the LPA (Local Planning Authority), it would be better to delegate the potential amendment posited by Councillor Puntis back to Planning Officers. Councillor Puntis explained that the common-sense approach was to avoid a situation where the site is developed but a land drainage consent cannot be acquired so the site remains unoccupied.  

The Committee discussed the potential amendment and decided that it was better to leave the motion as it was.  

Resolved:  

That Planning Permission be GRANTED, with authority delegated to the Acting Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.