Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material and informed them that the recommendation was now one of delegated permission. She said that the recommendation had been revised following ongoing negotiations with the applicant and a revised offer received after publication of the committee report. The planning officer said that the revised offer had secured a revised contribution of £20,000 towards affordable housing and for a deferred clause within the section 106 agreement to share any increases in profit based on a 50/50 split. The planning officer said that this was a realistic offer, particularly in view of the current economic climate, and on this basis, recommended delegated permission.

Public speaking

An objector to the application made the following statement: -

‘We the residents of Rectory Meadow and the surrounding areas, including School Lane, would like you, the planning committee, to take into consideration the following objections when you make your decision on the application for 13 dwellings in Longhope, on land adjacent to Rectory Meadow and School Lane. No objection was made about the conversion of the school into two properties. We still, and always will, state that Longhope needs upgrading before any major development can take place. Lots of houses have already been built and are still being built to date. The school is already full and needs extending. The drainage in the village needs upgrading, as was recommended a few years ago; (this includes the sewerage system, which, if overloaded, could be a problem). We still get power cuts every time we get adverse weather and these are taking longer to repair. There are hardly any facilities in the village, with only one shop and one post office. Having to travel to bigger towns means using public transport from either the top or the bottom end of the village – there is nothing in between. These services do not run very often due to cutbacks, which prevents people without any other type of transport getting out to seek employment or visit other places. Farmers with their tractors still struggle to negotiate the road down to the village and more houses will only make this worse. The proposed site is still not very good because the houses in the field and school do not have access. The one In Rectory Meadow is far too narrow for more traffic. Two ambulances responding to emergency calls found it very difficult to access; this is the same for fire engines, dustcarts and delivery vans, who also find it very difficult. This road in Rectory Meadow narrows at the top, which means that there will be no footpath at this point, which is dangerous. At the other end, onto Church Road, it is really bad and the visibility poor due to parked vehicles, where we have had a few near misses. (When I arrived home on Sunday morning at 5.30am, there were 21 cars parked in Rectory Meadow). We think too many trees will be destroyed and that bird life and grazing sheep will not exist any more. Lastly, if for any reason this planning application gets the go ahead, what will prevent the developers filling our open space with more houses? Will there be a legal document preventing this? Also, who will maintain the land without the sheep cutting the grass?’

Local member, Councillor Dave East, expressed concerns about access and said that the approach along Rectory Meadow was very narrow and over congested. He said that the road had poor visibility and that it would be difficult for emergency vehicles to access. Alternatively, the route along School Lane was narrow and overused. Councillor East said that it was not an option to consider widening either route and that his concerns were shared by both the parish council and local residents.

Committee consideration

Despite several concerns about access arrangements, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that there had been no objection from the Highway Authority in relation to this issue and that the site had been allocated for housing with two designated access roads. Responding to a question from Councillor Norman Stephens, the group manager said that he was not aware of any intention to develop nearby land, but should this be the case, the intention would be determined on how the proposal met with the council’s planning policies. 

Vote

Councillor Terry Glastonbury moved the recommendation and Councillor Brian Jones seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager – Planning and Housing and the Group Manager Legal and Democratic to grant planning permission subject to suitable conditions, including; details of hard and soft landscaping and replacement tree; ensuring that the tree protection works are implemented; details of foul and surface drainage; implementation of the car park prior to the occupation of the new dwellings; a number of highway conditions to ensure that the proposal is suitably implemented, and conditions to ensure that obscure glazing for certain windows and no further windows in certain elevations. Planning permission also subject to completion of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure the management of open space and Local Area of Play and the associated commuted sums of £42,579.12 and £27,455 respectively, and if the Council is required to equip the play area, a contribution of £14,850, details of the play area, a commuted sum of £20,000 for affordable housing and an “overage clause” to secure any uplift in sales value to be split equally between the Council and the developer and capped to ensure that any monies and affordable housing does not exceed 40%. If the S106 Legal Agreement is not secured on or before 10 April 2012, then delegated authority be given to the Group Manager - Planning and Housing to refuse the application.

For (12)

Councillors Brian Edwards, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates.

Against (3)

Councillors James Bevan, Julia Gooch and David Thomson

Abstentions (0)