Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 20/02109/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 24 minutes 37 seconds.

Erection of one 4-bed and two 3-bed detached dwellings including alterations to existing access.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/02109/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans and provided the Committee with the following updates:

·                Paragraph 4.3.24 of the report should be amended to refer to “3 dwellings”

·                Paragraph 4.4.1 of the report should be amended to omit “and to a designated heritage asset.”

The Chair invited Jeanette and Suzie Deards to address the Committee.

Jeanette and Suzie Deards gave a verbal presentation including the following:

·                They had lived next to the proposed development site for 40 years and in that time had never been overlooked or disturbed;

·                The 3 detached properties proposed would result in overcrowding and would not be in keeping with the area;

·                2 of the proposed properties would overlook their property and have a material impact on their privacy and natural light as well as an impact on the value of their property;

·                The proposed entrance to the site had never been used as an entrance before; it was off a busy road with a double corner and therefore dangerous;

·                The amount of cars associated with the development would outstrip the proposed parking allocated by the plans and would have a negative environmental impact;

·                The developments surrounding the proposed site met existing demand;

·                Waste and water drainage in the area was not strong and new residences would result in increased strain on the infrastructure;

·                The development was in a conservation area and a green belt site;

·                Local schools were oversubscribed; busses were infrequent; there would likely be 2 cars associated with every property which were necessary due to the rural location of the site.

The Chair invited Councillor Lisa Nash (Member Advocate) to address the Committee.

Councillor Lisa Nash thanked the Chair and addressed the Committee including the following:

·                Councillor Nash was ward member for the applicant and seeking permission for the applicant to build in their unused back garden;

·                The site sat next between a business park against one boundary, residential flats on another and a road on the third, with a well established hedgerow overlooking a small party boundary into open fields;

·                A development in this site would not result in any loss of openness;

·                The proposed development utilises a small private garden which serves no other purpose at present;

·                Some objections contained in the report from nearby residents were not founded on relevant planning considerations;

·                In view of Section 13 of the NPPF this development would not alter the boundary of the green belt and would not lead to a loss of openness;

·                Previous developments in green belt land had been approved;

·                The LEP allowed for this sort of development on other sites.

The Chair invited Mr Stephen Rice to address the Committee.

Mr Rice thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including the following:

·                In view of the housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85