Agenda item

Councillor Tom Tyson advised he would be acting as Member Advocate on this item and would take no part in the debate or vote.

 

RESOLVED: That Application 20/02599/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional conditions:

 

“22.  The garage hereby approved for plot 6 shall be retained for car parking purposes and for no other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: As this garage is larger than others associated with this development to ensure its use is maintained for the stated purpose.

 

 

23.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Classes A, B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.”

Audio Recording – 1 hour 1 minute.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson advised he would be acting as Member Advocate on this item and would take no part in the debate or vote.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of application 20/02599/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans including the following updates to the report:

 

·                A new condition to read “22.  The garage hereby approved for plot 6 shall be retained for car parking purposes and for no other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: As this garage is larger than others associated with this development to ensure its use is maintained for the stated purpose” was recommended.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Michael Muir

·                Councillor Mike Rice

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised:

 

·                The housing mix resulting from this permission would have been less acceptable if it had been proposed with the initial application but not enough to have resulted in a recommendation for refusal;

·                The buildings were the same height as originally approved;

·                Residents of these properties would not require planning permission to convert loft spaces into bedrooms;

·                An applicant seeking alterations to original planning permission was not unusual and at while the timeline of this application was not ideal at this time there was no relevant enforcement issue .

 

The Chair invited Mr Norton Mahy to address the Committee.

 

Mr Norton Mahy thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                Section 73 was not an appropriate mechanism for this application;

·                Policy HS3 required that a range of house types be considered which was not undertaken for this report;

·                The original planning application passed the policy test on the basis of a mixture of 3 and 4 bedroom houses; if the policy were applied here it would find the housing mix unacceptable;

·                Acceptable housing mix was an important aspect of the Ashwell neighbourhood development plan;

·                That future residents of the development would be able to convert loft spaces into bedrooms was a spurious argument in favour of developers being permitted to do so;

·                Marketing from the developers indicated their intention was always to sell these dwellings with additional rooms.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

 

In response to questions Mr Norton Mahy advised that the Ashwell neighbourhood plan outlined the housing mix requirements of the area clearly and there was a need for development of 2-4 bedroom dwellings.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Tom Tyson to address the Committee in his capacity as a Member Advocate.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

 

·                It appeared that the houses in the development had been built and marketed as 4-5 bedroom dwellings as envisioned by this application, not the earlier application which had been approved;

·                This process appeared to circumnavigate the planning permission procedure;

·                The assessment of need of housing mix in the Ashwell area suggested there was only a 1% need for 5 bedroom dwellings;

·                The Section 73 procedure allowed for minor amendments or variations to conditions, not for the developer to change the nature of the development;

·                This application rendered the development approved self-contradictory and Section 73 was not the correct mechanism for seeking approval.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Tom Tyson for his presentation.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to issues raised in the presentations including:

 

·                The Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan was not at a stage where its requirements could be considered to have full weight in regards to making a decision on this application;

·                The availability of permitted development rights of future residents was given significant weight;

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the description of the development had not changed and this application was to vary condition 2 of the approved application, as allowed by the Section 73 mechanism.

 

Councillor Tom Tyson was removed to the waiting room before the debate commenced.

 

Councillor David Levett asked for clarificatory advice on the Section 73 mechanism and the prospect of deferral.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that policy HS3 had been considered in the report, that the existence of permitted development rights was considered significant, and that Section 73 gave room for the Committee to consider all planning considerations they felt relevant.

 

The following Members asked questions and participated in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Tony Hunter

 

Issues raised in the debate included:

 

·                Sales price of the dwellings with additional bedrooms;

·                Removal of permitted development rights;

·                Housing mixture in Ashwell.

 

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed, Councillor Mike Rice seconded and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Application 20/02599/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional conditions:

 

“22.  The garage hereby approved for plot 6 shall be retained for car parking purposes and for no other purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: As this garage is larger than others associated with this development to ensure its use is maintained for the stated purpose.

 

23.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended no development as set out in Classes A, B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, (or any subsequent Statutory Instrument which revokes, amends and/or replaces those provisions) shall be carried out without first obtaining a specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: Given the nature of this development, the Local Planning Authority considers that development which would normally be "permitted development" should be retained within planning control in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.”

 

N.B The Chair called for a comfort break and the meeting adjourned at 9:15.

 

The meeting resumed at 9:24 PM. The Committee, Member and Scrutiny Officer conducted a roll-call to confirm all Members, Officers and registered speakers were in attendance.