Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Tim Slater, the Agent.

Mr Slater thanked the committee for giving him the opportunity to address the meeting on behalf of the applicant and thanked officers for their support in relation to this proposal. He would endorse the officer’s report as a fair and accurate assessment of the proposal with the material considerations and the planning balance necessary to make a positive recommendation.

Mr Slater stated that the site has been vacant for several years and has a short but significant planning history, key to which is the extant planning permission for 4 large 3 /4 bed dwellings, which is a comparison and fallback position against which this application should be considered.

He added that in terms of the suggestion that the proposal is overdevelopment, it is noted that the footprint of the 4 detached dwellings on the previous approval was 528sqm and the footprint of  the 8 semis on the latest scheme is 389.2sqm and, therefore, the footprint of the current proposal is significantly smaller, 26% smaller than the 4 plots previously approved and the current proposal is more in keeping with scale of local development and the prevailing need for smaller 3 bed properties.

Mr Slater stated that following the grant of the previous scheme the local market has changed and there is now limited demand for larger properties and, therefore, in order to maintain an economic viable scheme it has been amended to more closely align to current housing demand in the area.

He expressed the opinion that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 120 confirms that planning decisions made should reflect the changes in demand for development and that much of the current residential development within the village and its surrounds is for larger 4+ bed properties and, therefore, supply of smaller homes is limited.

Mr Slater made the point that the housing need assessment to accompany the new local plan has not yet been carried out and as such the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Needs Assessment (including Coates and Eastrea) is the most up to date document, which confirms that there is a need for new homes within the plan area and in particular there is a significant need for smaller family homes.

He added that number of the objectors do, in fact acknowledge the need for smaller homes in the village and he referred members to NPPF at paragraph 122, which confirms planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it and the local market conditions and viability.

Mr Slater stated that with regard to amenity space, it is considered that the current proposal has significantly less impact on residential amenity of adjacent properties than the previously approved scheme with the proposed dwellings having a lower ridge than the previous approved plots and the rear garden sizes are longer than those on the approved 4 plot layout.

With regard to garage provision, he stated that it is noted that nowhere in the adopted Local Plan or in the NPPF is there a policy requirement for new residential development to incorporate garages the requirement is to provide off street parking in accordance with material policy and in this case all properties provide the requisite 2 off street spaces in accordance with the Local Plan Annex A.

Mr Slater added that there are no objection to the proposal on highway grounds from the Highway Authority and the applicant and agent have worked closely with the Planning Officer and implemented numerous design changes to the plans as requested, including lowering the ridge height, the removal of 2 large gables on the front of the properties and simplifying the design to give a cottage style appearance to resemble workers’ cottages, which fits well in the local area. He concluded by stating that overall, it is considered that this is an appropriate and acceptable development for this site, it meets an acknowledged housing need, makes efficient use of development land and has less visual impact than the previously approved scheme.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Slater for clarification with regard to the provision of garages. Mr Slater that garages do not form part of this proposal. In the previous scheme, garages were included.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he has never been keen on development in this area, however, he does not see anything wrong with this scheme and he will be supporting the proposal.

·         Councillor Miscandlon expressed concern over the two metre high brick wall and added that it detracts from the beauty of the village of Coates. David Rowen stated that the wall has formed part of the application and officers are satisfied that the scheme is acceptable.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the 2 metre wall is already in place and was given planning permission previously.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Clark and decided that the application be APPROVED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

 (Councillor Miscandlon registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the Chairman of the Planning Committee at Whittlesey Town Council and he has taken part in the discussion and voting on this item, but he reserves the right to change his mind should evidence and information be brought forward to alter his decision).