Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of 72 dwellings, including 26 affordable following demolition of existing buildings with associated access, car and secure cycle parking, landscaping and servicing (as amended by plans recieved 19/03/2018, 27/06/2018 and 01/08/2018, 08/08/2018, 31/08/2018, 03/09/2018, 04/09/2018)

Recommendations

Proposed development

Erection of 72 dwellings, including 26 affordable following demolition of existing buildings with associated access, car and secure cycle parking, landscaping and servicing (as amended by plans recieved 19/03/2018, 27/06/2018 and 01/08/2018, 08/08/2018, 31/08/2018, 03/09/2018, 04/09/2018)

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and then outlined the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

The Committee was advised that permission was sought for the erection of 72 dwellings, including 26 affordable dwellings, following demolition of existing buildings with associated access, car and secure cycle parking, landscaping and servicing. Some works associated with this application had commenced on site, including the demolition of the former nursery buildings and the construction of some dwellings. As such, this application was partially retrospective.

Erection of 65 new dwellings, including 26 affordable, following demolition of existing buildings with associated access, car and secure cycle parking, landscaping and servicing (WA/2015/2163) had been approved by the Committee on 7 July 2016.

Members noted that since the publication of the agenda, additional plans had been received and the Council’s Greenspaces Manager had requested a change to the infrastructure projects for leisure/parks and countryside. There were a number of changes/amendments proposed to the conditions which were outlined in the update sheet.

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Stephen Trenwith - Applicant/Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and was very disappointed about the breach of conditions by the applicants in relation to the trees. Works pursuant to the existing 65-unit scheme had commenced without appropriate tree protection measures in place, in breach of relevant conditions. The works included the construction of a temporary access road within root protection areas. The Council’s Tree & Landscape Officer had visited the site and witnessed direct damage to tree roots from the roadway installation at an inappropriate juxtaposition. It was noted that exposed shattered rooting was visible.

The Committee was informed that the removal of the trees had not been appropriately justified by the applicants. As such, a criminal offence may have occurred under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and this matter was the subject of an open planning enforcement investigation. This position was far from desirable, but it was not possible to reverse the harm that had been caused through the tree removal. However, there was an opportunity to secure improvements over the existing position and the new application proposed compensation planting towards the rear of the site.

Members noted the apology from the applicant during the public speaking but were still frustrated that this had not been picked up earlier so that the damage could have been avoided. It was noted that this was subject to planning enforcement action and the officers could not go into the details during public session. Councillor Paul Follows questioned whether or not they should wait for the investigation to be complete before making a decision. Elizabeth Sims explained that they were two different processes and that this was not in their remit. 

Councillor Kevin Deanus raised several points particularly around the Affordable Housing being in one place and not spread out across the site, and six of the dwellings being below the minimum space limit standard. Councillor  Jerry Hyman asked about an Appropriate Assessment and the Council’s Planning Lawyer confirmed that it was satisfactory.

Councillor Paul Follows left at 7.49pm so did not take part in the vote.

During debate the Committee requested condition 4, regarding electrical charging points, be amended to be more robust, and asked for additional conditions in relation to the management of the proposed pumping plan and dwellings have been completed to meet the requirement of 110 litres of water per person per day. 

The Chairman moved to the revised recommendation A, on which 12 voted in favour, 2 against with 1 abstention. Voting on recommendation B was unanimous in favour.

Decisions