Agenda item
The application has been called in by Councillor Lynda McWilliams.
The proposal is for the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Great Bentley and formed part of the red line area of the original Admirals Farm development to the east of the site that currently has approval for 59 dwellings. The land was allocated as ‘landscaping’ not designated Public Open Space within the original plans for the Admirals Farm development. The Children’s Playground has been moved to the field opposite the host site. As such, it is considered there is not an in principle objection to using this site as an area for housing provision sustainably within the District.
Minutes:
Members were reminded that the application had been “called in” by Councillor Lynda McWilliams, the local Ward Member. Her reasons included that, in her opinion, the development would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area, and there were concerns regarding the increase in traffic within the village with the subsequent impact on pedestrian safety in the area. In addition, Councillor McWilliams felt that there would be a negative impact on neighbours in terms of a loss of residential amenity, via overlooking and the development would add to increased pressure on local services. Finally, as this was not an allocated site for housing considered that this land should not have been used for such a purpose when there was a positive housing supply within the District.
It was reported that the proposal was for the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. The site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary of Great Bentley and formed part of the red line area of the original Admirals Farm development to the east of the site that currently had approval for 59 dwellings. The land had been allocated as ‘landscaping’ and not designated Public Open Space within the original plans for the Admirals Farm development. The proposed Children’s Playground had been moved to the field opposite the host site. As such, it was considered by Officers that there was not an, in principle, objection to using this site as an area for housing provision sustainably within the District.
Members were also reminded that the proposal was considered by Officers to be of a size, scale and design in keeping with the overall grain of residential development in the surrounding area. There were no concerns raised regarding the amenity impact on the neighbouring residential properties and subject to conditions it was considered to be acceptable in regards to Highways, Parking, Landscaping and Appearance.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (NW) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:
(1) An additional condition, in accordance with Environmental Protection’s original advice as detailed within the committee report, was recommended.
(2) Further to the existing legal requirements, a linking obligation was required to ensure that prior to any occupation of any new dwelling approved the LEAP (approved via 21/00739/FUL) to the north of the host site was completed in full and that provision was made for its future management and maintenance as public open space land.
(3) To ensure the health of the existing hedge to the south and east of the host site, the proposed fence within the development should be a minimum distance of 0.5 from the existing hedge. To that affect, condition 4 was suggested to be re worded.
(4) An amendment to the Officer Recommendation as follows:
a) Within six (6) months of the date of the Committee’s resolution to approve, the completion of a legal agreement under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dealing with the following matters (where relevant):
· Financial Contribution towards RAMS
· Financial Contribution towards Affordable Housing Provision
· Education Contributions
· Open Space Contribution
· Prior to the occupation of any new dwelling approved on the Site in accordance with this application, that the LEAP (Locally Equipped Play Area) approved under Planning Permission reference 21/00739/FUL to the north of the Site is completed in full and that provision is made for its future management and maintenance as public open space land.
Emma Walker, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Peter Harry, a local resident, spoke against the application.
Councillor McWilliams, the local Ward Member, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
A member of the committee asked Planning Officers to confirm if there was any interest for the proposed doctors’ surgery. |
The Planning Officer confirmed that the doctors’ surgery was originally put forward for planning permission however, this was refused, and therefore, a contribution was given to the existing surgery. There was not a planning condition or legal obligation to obstruct the doctors’ surgery granted in 2016. |
|
Were there any reasons for this area not being considered for public space and now suitable for housing? |
The Planning Officer advised that in 2015, 25 dwellings were approved with the doctors’ surgery, the development had less of an impact on the conservation area. |
|
Was the development within the permitted development area? |
Members were referred to the Local Plan whereby, the site laid within the permitted development boundary. |
|
Was there a minimal decrease in the play area and what percentage? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of the size of the play area, there was a minimal reduction in the Officer’s opinion. The Planning Officer advised that the play area originally had a surplus of 11.7%, the reduction was in the region of 0.3-0.5% resulting to a surplus of approximately 10% of public space. There was a request for a considerable amount of funds of around £20-25,000 to be issued to Great Bentley Parish Council to purchase play equipment. |
|
Approximately, how many dwellings would there be in total? |
The Planning Officer advised that there would be 80 dwellings in total on site. Fundamentally, the Planning Inspector increased the use of the land for an additional 25 units away from the conservation area so the impact was negligible. |
|
Was there any affordable or social housing included? |
The Planning Officer informed the Committee that there were offsite housing contributions, so no affordable housing available. |
|
A Committee member asked Planning Officers to confirm that under SPL1, that Great Bentley was identified as a rural service centre? |
The Planning Officer confirmed that was correct. |
|
A Committee member referred to the movement of the 30 mph sign, could the Planning Officer advise where this would have been placed? |
The Planning Officer showed the Committee on the map where the existing sign was and where it would be moved to. |
|
Could the Planning Officer advise what the boundary distance was? |
The landscape buffer was approximately 20-25m. |
|
A member of the Committee asked Planning Services to clarify the definition of windfall site. |
The Planning Manager advised that the 75 dwellings refused in 2016 were part of the committed housing supply within the local plan, a site to be considered similar to that of the plan, was considered a windfall site. |
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Alexander and unanimously RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-
· On grounds of loss of landscaped Open Space and impact on character of locality.
Supporting documents:
PDF 609 KB