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 Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler explained that the application is for outline approval to establish the principle of development and if approved it is planned to be a mixture of small starter homes including 2, 3 and 4-bedroom houses. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that the photo shown indicates that although the development is an extension of the existing site of 9 dwellings it still falls adjacent to the existing developed footprint of Manea as per Policy LP12 and the open area to the north is planned to be public open space with soft landscaping as required to maintain the character of the open countryside appearance from the North.

Mr Gowler stated that a biodiversity checklist was provided as part of the application and the officer had not requested a more comprehensive ecology report prior to the committee report. He added that the site has been used for material and spoil storage for the development of nine dwellings already approved and, therefore, it is unlikely to have any ecological value, however, the applicant would be happy to an additional survey carried out along with providing ecological enhancements as a condition of the approval.

Mr Gowler stated that no details of affordable housing or offsite contributions have been requested by officers during the application, however, the applicant is happy to provide the necessary affordable housing or contributions in lieu and would also be happy to agree offsite contributions, with the applicant not looking to carry out a viability assessment to reduce this. He explained that the details of affordable housing provision and contributions could be agreed as part the Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Gowler explained that the site is located is Flood Zone 1 which is low risk and a detailed drainage strategy was included with the application and, in his opinion, the development would help to meet the housing need of Manea by being a mixed development as it meets current policies of the Local Plan in particular LP12 contrary to the officer’s recommendation. He reiterated that he would be happy for the necessary conditions to be applied if the application is approved and also the approval subject to Section 106 Agreement.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·       Councilor Mrs French stated that she is pleased that Mr Gowler has made reference to affordable homes within his presentation as the officer’s report does not detail that matter. She added that there is a housing strategy but there is nothing mentioned with regards to education or other requirements. Councillor Mrs French added that 26 dwellings would require 7 affordable homes to be included within the development and at 9.33 of the officer’s report it refers to the Council’s Local Plan and Section 106.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that at 9.35 of the officer’s report it clearly states that the applicant is unwilling to enter in a legal agreement to provide affordable housing or any other development contributions. Mr Gowler explained that he has never been asked the question from officers with regards to biodiversity and Section 106 but added that the applicant is more than happy to enter into that, and they are not looking to submit a viability assessment to try and reduce that and are happy to go ahead with the full contributions whether that be actual physical houses or financial contributions for social housing and the offsite contributions.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether going forward there is the intention to undertake further development going down towards the Darcy Road? Mr Gowler stated that the back of the development which he has indicated is heading towards Flood Zones two and three and, therefore, they have intentionally kept out of that area as it creates potential problems elsewhere and more comprehensive issues with the building. He added that it also provides more space for the attenuation pond and the required public open space, and he explained that he cannot foresee that the area would be developed particularly due to the flood zone issues.

·       Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Gowler whether the missing information to accompany his application is only missing as it is an outline planning application and can be provided in due course should his application be approved? Mr Gowler stated that as part of the validation process the application paperwork should be accompanied with a biodiversity checklist and that is submitted and once it is registered if it deemed that a more comprehensive ecology report is required it is then requested by officers. He added that the area where the nine dwellings are being developed has meant that the land behind has started to be used as storage for material and plant equipment and the chance of a protected species being there would be low because the land is being disturbed all the time and that is why the checklist that has been provided is just the standard one as he feels that is enough for this application.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for the detail concerning the Section 106 matter. David Rowen stated that as part of the application, no heads of terms have been submitted and as part of the application form there is a question within that which asks for the relevant housing categories to be selected which are relevant to the proposal. He added that on the application form for this scheme the only housing category which has been ticked on the application form is market housing. David Rowen added that given the answer to that question and the absence of any heads of terms for a potential legal agreement, officers concluded that there is no Section 106 Agreement. Councillor Mrs French stated that she would not support 26 dwellings that do not contribute to the local community.

·       Councillor Miscandlon stated that he cannot support an application which does not give something back to the community and only gives profit to the developer.

·       Councillor Marks asked whether a condition could be added with regards to Section 106 contributions and affordable homes? David Rowen stated that a condition for Section 106 contributions cannot be added, and he explained that either an application is granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement, or it is not. He added that the agent has indicated there is the will to enter into a Section 106 Agreement at a very late stage when there has been ample opportunity to advise officers of that fact prior to the application coming before the committee.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the officers report states the reason for the application coming to committee is number of representations contrary to the officer’s recommendation and he questioned whether it should also state and objection from the Parish Council. David Rowen stated that the Parish Council object to the application and under the scheme of delegation as the recommendation is to refuse the application there is no reason for it to noted.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is incomplete, it is for 26 houses and without a contribution under a Section 106 Agreement she cannot support the application in its present form.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees, and he cannot support the application.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Mrs Davis and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Marks stated that the applicant for this item is known to him in a professional capacity, but it would not make any difference to his decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillors Benney and Murphy stated that the applicant for this item is known to them, but it would not make any difference to their decision making and voting on the application)

(Councillors Murphy, Benney, Connor and Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the agent for this item is known to them in a professional capacity, but it would not make any difference to their decision making and voting on the application)