Agenda item

To determine the application.

Theresa Nicholl presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the original application was approved in 2012 which was 10 years ago and asked if anything has actually happened on site since then or does this actually require a full application rather than a change of conditions? Theresa Nicholl responded that she did investigate this, and she received confirmation from Building Control that the foundations for one of the garages had been laid in 2016 following discharge of the relevant conditions and also some of the buildings on site have been demolished and on the balance of probabilities her assessment was that the development had commenced.

·       Councillor Sutton agreed with the comments of officers and does not understand why there is any doubt about it as the 2012 permission was for the erection of 9 dwellings involving demolition of the existing buildings so as soon as the former buildings were demolished the development had commenced and he knows for a fact, as he spoke to the builder, that the garage base on plots 2 and 3 was put in at that stage as he walked on site and spoke to him so he can confirm that there is no issue with commencement. He referred to the latest iteration of the plan and officers, in his view, have worked with the agent very generously to accommodate the request of the Old School House and the Old School to be able to access their cesspit for emptying and on the original 2012 plan there was just a very narrow 1 metre wide pathway and through negotiation the applicant and agent have made it better so they can reverse down and get closer to it. Councillor Sutton referred to plan 08N and expressed the view that there is a discrepancy between that and MTC’s plan and if officers are saying the development has to be built to comply with 08N, in his opinion, it cannot because 08N shows the services going from the road down to the back of the site and going right through the attenuation cage so he thinks before permission could be given 08N needs revising unless he is told that this is a minor issue. Theresa Nicholl responded that the plan has changed considerably as she has been working with the agent to try and clear up the outstanding conditions and she had not picked this up on the most recent plan, however, she thinks that as this is below ground services she believes it could be de minimus and it could be dealt with later as it does not change the appearance of the development and is more of a building control issue.

·       Councillor Skoulding thanked officers in assisting with a fantastic design but asked if there will be a ransom strip on the south boundary or will it go to the boundary as shown questioning whether there would be any further development? Theresa Nicholl responded that it is not really for consideration as part of this application because members should be considering what is in front of them and she does not know but it would be for future consideration and whether a ransom strip is built into the scheme is up to the applicant and is not a planning issue. She stated that she does not take any credit for the design as it was approved previously and has only been tweaked slightly.

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

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that officers have got this recommendation right.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that from where this application started the revisions are an excellent result of working in partnership which is credit to both officers and the agent. He does think there are some negatives but some positives as well, such as the new fencing which is a big improvement on the proposed chain link fence and the bollard lighting which is much better ecologically with the negatives being removal of the nice finials on the roof but he acknowledges that they are expensive and the false chimneys did balance out design nicely but he does not think that takes that much away from the development to make it unacceptable. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the applicant has listened to the residents and there have been some residents complaining about the development in the whole, but this is too late as it already has extant permission. He congratulated everyone involved and hoped to soon see work start on the site.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Sutton and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Sutton advised that when this application had been discussed at previous Planning Committee meetings the site had been owned by a friend and he had declared an interest and left the meeting. He stated the land has now changed ownership and he now feels that he does not have an interest and can make an open-minded decision on the application)