Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Referring members to the late material, Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, noted a correction to page 99 of the agenda and said that the parish council, whilst supporting the scheme for a site adjoining Millennium Cottages, had also expressed a preference for this application in preference to the alternative Hitchin’s (P1680/11/FUL) scheme. The Development Control Manager said that this site was unfavourable due to its awkward relationship to the adjoining built form and because of the adverse impact on the adjoining Conservation Area. He informed members that an earlier identical application at the site had been withdrawn after the applicant had become aware that the recommendation would be for refusal. He also said that, unlike the two applications that had been withdrawn at the start of the meeting, the properties for listed building consideration by English Heritage did not directly adjoin this proposal, thus allowing this application to be considered at the meeting. The recommendation remained one of refusal for the reasons outlined on page 105 of the agenda.

Public speaking

Speaking in objection to the application, the speaker said that:

‘he agreed with the planning officer’s decision to withdraw planning applications P1680/11/FUL and P2044/11/OUT to investigate the listed building status of some of the buildings at the two sites. He also agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for this application. Questioning the impact of the proposals, the objector said that the proposals for this site did not reflect the wishes of the local community and had ignored historic chartist information on settlement boundaries. On the assumption that the parish council (Staunton) and the local community favoured proposals for the site adjoining Millennium Cottages, the speaker highlighted the importance of not only considering the listed building status of some of the buildings at the site but also the ecology of the area. Whilst unable to comment on the views of Corse Parish Council, the speaker requested that the committee consider the views of the local community in determining this application’.

Speaking on behalf of the Staunton Parish Council, Parish Councillor, Basil Allen, said that:

‘the parish council and a number of residents living in Staunton and Corse, objected to both the applications for Land at Chartist Way. Councillor Allen said that he would give his reasons for the objections when the application for the site adjoining Millennium Cottages, (withdrawn earlier in the meeting), was due for consideration’.

Local member, Peter Ede, said he agreed with the officer’s recommendation and approved of the stance from Staunton Parish Council in supporting the wishes of local parishioners. He could not, however, comment on the views of Corse Parish Council, as these were unknown.

Committee consideration

Councillor Philip Burford, said that he was very disappointed that the three applications for Staunton would not be considered together. He said that, from his understanding Staunton Parish Council preferred the application for land adjoining Millennium Cottages in preference to the two other applications. However, as a fallback, the parish council also preferred this application to the alternative Hitchin’s application. On this basis, Councillor Burford believed it was essential for the committee to consider the application for Land adjacent to Millennium Cottages before considering this application and subsequently proposed that the application be deferred to allow the three applications to be considered at the same meeting. He also believed it was important for officers to seek clarification on why the parish council had shown a preference for the Millennium Cottage application and to establish what material planning considerations this preference was based on.

Councillor Norman Stephens agreed that it might be beneficial to defer the application to allow the committee to consider the three applications together. He later suggested that the committee revisit each of the three sites to make it absolutely clear what the proposals related to. Councillor Burford accepted this proposal and said that a comparison of the three applications was critical in securing the best possible outcome. Other members also agreed with this perspective. 

Vote

Councillor Philip Burford proposed that the application be deferred until such time that the three planning applications, (P1680/11/FUL, P1681/11/FUL and P2044/11/OUT), could be considered together. (Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, advised the committee that he was not sure when this would take place, pending the outcome of the English Heritage review). Councillor Burford also proposed that that application be deferred to seek clarification on the views of the parish council and for members to visit the site. Councillor Frankie Evans seconded this proposal. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for the reasons given at the meeting and to allow members to revisit the sites in Staunton

For (12)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Norman Stephens and Arthur Thomas.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)