Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Residential development comprising of 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows, 6 x 2 bedroom houses and 6 x 3 bedroom houses with associated landscaping, parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing commercial buildings.

RESOLVED: that application 18/01814/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the

reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – Session 3 - 0.00 secs

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the following amendment to the report

was required:

 

•        Paragraph 4.3.59 of the report in the second last line of the paragraph. The sentence should read:

 

‘the harmful effects of the development by far outweigh the limited benefit of

delivering new homes etc (removing the words ‘are far outweighed by’)

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application

18/01814/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and

plans.

 

Councillor David Barnard, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the

opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 18/01814/FP   as

follows:

 

•        The Parish Council and village community were in support of this application;

•        The site was not green belt;

•        The scheme offered small properties, which responded to the need for smaller, more affordable homes;

•        The Paddocks development was granted planning permission last year by NHDC and was located towards the right of this site.

•        There was an acceptable entrance to the site;

•        There were acceptable footpaths into the village;

•        Luton Airport estimated that there would be 32 million passengers per year over the next few years. However, there were many reasons as to why this may not happen;

•        It was a planning gain.

 

Mr Ed Norris, DLP Planning and Mr Tom Brindley, Kings Walden Parish Council,

thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of

application18/01814/FP.

 

Mr Norris informed Members that:

 

•        This was a previously developed brownfield site;

•        The scheme was revised following a refusal in 2018;

•        The applicant had sought to address the concerns previously made;

•        There had been a reduction in the number of dwellings;

•        An enhancement of the design was made;

•        There were changes made to the access to the development, including the implementation of a footpath into the village;

•        The site was currently vacant, in a dilapidated state and detracted from the appearance of the local area;

•        The development proposal provided a lesser footprint than the existing buildings;

•        Noise levels had been assessed and complied with the relevant British Standard for Noise.

 

Mr Brindley advised that:

 

•        He was Clerk to Kings Walden Parish Council;

•        The site was crying out for redevelopment;

•        Local residents believed that the site should be developed for housing;

•        The current site was an eyesore and dangerous;

•        The Local Plan allowed for windfall developments;

•        The site was previously developed land.

 

Councillor Sue Ngwala asked for clarification regarding Green Belt legislation.

 

Mr Norris referred to National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 135G and

advised that the Green Belt was not at risk of harm and this was an opportunity to

redevelop the land for much needed housing.

 

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that he agreed that this was previously

developed land, however the number and height of the proposed dwellings would

cause harm to the Green Belt. There was an allowance in the Local Plan for windfall

sites but not in the Green Belt.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

•        Councillor David Levett;

•        Councillor Michael Weeks;

•        Councillor Sue Ngwala;

•        Councillor Ruth Brown;

•        Councillor Kay Tart;

•        Councillor Tony Hunter;

·                Councillor Ian Mantle

•        Councillor Terry Tyler.

 

Points raised during the debate were as follows:

 

•        This development could be considered infill as there were developments either side of the site;

•        Noise from Luton Airport flight path and its effect on residents’ health;

•        The site would need to meet green belt legislation;

•        Whether or not the area was suitable for homes and whether the site could be suitable for something else;

•        There were too many homes proposed;

•        The current site was a blot on the landscape and it would remain that way unless something was done about it;

•        Living under a flight path would not be a problem for some people although would be difficult for others;

•        Developing an area because it was a blot on the landscape was not a reason to grant planning permission;

·                It was noted that there were objections from highways, landscape and environmental health.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised:

 

•        That Environmental Health had raised the issue about noise from aircraft flying over.  Fewer dwellings would help the noise concern but this would make it a completely different scheme;

•        The only options were to either approve or refuse this application;

•        There were mitigating factors that could help the noise issue but these were not future proof as noise levels were likely to increase in years to come. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Michael Weeks and seconded by Councillor Mike Rice

that application 18/01814/FP be approved planning permission.

 

Councillor Weeks discussed the option of deferral, but there was no seconder for this

proposal

 

Upon the motion to approve being put to the vote, the proposal to approve was lost. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Sue Ngwala and seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown

that application 18/01814/FP be refused planning permission.

 

Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: that application 18/01814/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the

reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.