Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mr Humphrey explained that the site is situated between three drainage ditches and as part of the application, the applicant is prepared to offer some street lighting to assist in the lighting of the footpath to the railway station and it will also provide a community benefit to overcome the flood risk issues. He thanked the officers for the report and stated that within the assessment at 10.2 it states that the officer has confirmed that it would be difficult to argue that the principle of residential development was unacceptable given the surroundings hence the application is supported by policies LP2 and LP12 of the Local Plan.

Mr Humphrey explained that at 10.5 it states that the site will read as part of the existing village not to appear incongruous or as an encroachment into the countryside and that the officer’s report states that at the reserved matters stage, the visual impact could be acceptable and that the submitted details would relate appropriately with the dwellings around it and the garden sizes comply with policy LP16(h) and the scheme is compliant with LP16. He stated that at 10.17 with regards to flood risk it points out that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development at the time of the application, with there being material changes since he made the last application in so far as the application for 5 dwellings the other side of the railway line has been approved and the access has now moved from the first application as has the red line and, therefore, it is a different application.

Mr Humphrey stated that if members feel that four dwellings is over development then the applicant would consider three dwellings on the site, however, the officer has not raised any concern. He made the point that the planning officer has confirmed in all terms apart from flood risk that the site is in keeping with the area and subject to design and finishes it would not detract from the character of the area, adding that the proposal is to include sustainable benefits for the site in accordance with the exception test which is flood warning, finished floor levels in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, evacuation plan, solar panels and PV triple glazing.

Mr Humphrey asked members to reconsider the proposal from the previous application and support it.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that she is disappointed to hear that Mr Humphrey is suggesting that the number of dwellings be reduced and it is a pity that the number of dwellings was not reduced previously as the committee will be considering the application before them today and the only way to accept the reduction in dwellings is for the application to be refused and for a new application to be submitted for the three dwellings which, in her view, would make more sense and she asked Mr Humphrey whether it was something that he would consider? Mr Humphrey stated that he is aware that there is no longer the option to resubmit an application for free and he questioned whether the description of the application could be changed to a maximum of three dwellings or whether it would need a new application. He added that the Planning Officer has inferred that they are happy with the planning application as it is in its current state.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the committee need to look at the application which is before them and there is no alternative.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Hicks asked whether there needs to be a new application submitted or whether  three dwellings can be considered? David Rowen confirmed that the reduction in dwellings cannot be considered.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is recommended for refusal as it does not meet the sequential test and she asked whether there has been any information received from the agent with regards to it. David Rowen explained that the sequential test document was submitted with the application which identified a number of sites which would be sequentially preferable but had been incorrectly discounted from consideration.

·         Councillor Connor asked what is the difference with this application from the one which was refused previously? David Rowen stated that not a lot has changed, and he explained that as part of the previous application a sequential test was submitted which identified other sites and incorrectly discounted them from being available.

Proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the applicant’s mother stood against him at an election, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant’s father is his former doctor and he knows the applicant’s wife and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)