Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that members had indicated on the site visit the importance of the bottom end which incorporates the plot for turning as it is a very narrow road and most of the existing residents along the road appear to park on the road and, therefore, there is nowhere to turn. He added that should the proposal be approved it is very important that there is sufficient space to turn, and that the Parish Council have also highlighted the same point. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that it has been further complicated with regards to the other entrance from Riverside and the development on the other side and, therefore, it is important that if approved then strict controls be included with regards to access and turning for the remainder of Riverside Gardens and not just the proposal plot.  David Rowen responded that access is committed as part of the application and the arrangement at the turning head is incorporated as a detailed matter as part of the application.

·         Councillor Sutton asked officers to clarify why the dwelling could not have been built on Brewery Gardens because there are four plots there which are in Flood Zone 1 and, in his opinion, a dwelling would fit there quite comfortably. Alison Hoffman explained that part of applying a sequential test is to see whether or not a site is available and once the first clod of soil has been moved and a commitment to build has happened, a site is deemed as no longer available. She added that she is aware that the applicants at Brewery Close in that particular instance were very keen to commence development and their intention was to build out that site and as the site was not available it would not be factored into the sequential test. Nick Harding confirmed that work has commenced on the site.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that now that information has been confirmed by officers, in his view, the report has been written without any detail of that evidence and it did not detail Brewery Gardens specifically but referred to two other sites which were available. He added that the proposed dwelling would not fit on those sites and the report did not mention why it could not be built on Brewery Gardens at all. Nick Harding agreed with the feedback from Councillor Sutton and clarified that at 10.8 of the officer’s report it states that the submitted sequential test information fails to identify any sites with extant permissions which would be at lower flood risk and that no other sites are known, and the sequential test is, therefore, passed.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that officers would not normally be expected to list sites and the fact that the sequential test has been passed is acceptable.

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

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he will support the application regardless of who the applicant is as the current site is an absolute tip and an eyesore. He expressed the opinion that the resident of Number 6 will be glad for a house to be built there instead of a group of derelict garages.

·         Councillor Purser agreed with the comments made by Councillor Miscandlon and will support the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that a derelict site is not a material planning consideration. She added that she has had her concerns allayed with regards to the turning circle as she has been advised that the average size delivery vehicle would be able to turn, and she will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he will support the application, but he would like to see the hammerhead have hatched markings. Councillor Connor stated that it is a good idea but it would be down to the Highway Authority to decide that.

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

(Mrs French and Murphy declared that, whilst they are both members of the Cabinet, they are not pre-determined on this application and will approach it with an open mind)