Agenda item

Proposed construction of 54 residential dwellings and associated works.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit

This application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 11 October 2017 for further discussion with the applicant with regard to phasing.

Further information as reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the receipt of additional Parish Council comments, further supporting information received from the applicant and amended condition 3 was provided.

Mr Harris reported the outcome of a meeting held with planning officers, the applicant, Kirdford Parish Council and Mr Ransley, Wisborough Green Ward member to explore if phasing of the development for a longer period than five years was possible. Following this meeting, the applicant had withdrawn their original proposal regarding phasing and had advised the local planning authority that phasing could no longer be accommodated.  Officers were of the view that there were no planning policy, practical, or viability-related reasons or any other material considerations to justify the development not being carried out with at least some form of phasing. If no phasing was provided, this would be in conflict with a fundamental requirement of Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan Policy KS1.  Accordingly, whilst the applicant’s position was noted, the original recommendation to defer the application for the completion of a Section 106 agreement and to permit on the basis of a five-year phasing programme remained unchanged.  He referred to paragraph 8.29 of the report, concerning the Council’s five-year housing land supply, and advised that phasing over a period longer than five years was not supported by officers.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr T Piedade – Parish Representative;

·       Mrs L Nutting – Objector;

·       Mr P White – Agent; and

·       Mr J Ransley – CDC Ward Member

In responding to members’ questions and comments, Mr Harris explained that the scheme that officers were recommending was substantially in compliance with Neighbourhood Plan Policy KS1, and that an element of phasing was proposed as the policy required. He referred to paragraph 8.48 of the report that set out the details of the number of benefits that the development would provide.   The District Valuer had carried out a thorough evaluation and his view was that a five-year phased development would be financially viable but that phasing over a longer period was not.  The view of officers was that, providing the commencement of the development was not unduly delayed, the dwellings that resulted from a five-year phasing programme would contribute towards the Council’s current five-year housing land supply.  He referred to recent appeal decisions where planning inspectors had reached a view on what they considered to be the Council’s housing land supply, which had resulted in officers reassessing the Council’s supply and publishing an updated position statement concluding that the Council currently had a 5.3 year housing land supply.  

Mr Frost added that the Council was of the view that it had a robust five-year housing land supply.  In the event that the officer recommendation was agreed by the committee, if the applicant was not willing to sign the Section 106 agreement due to the obligations and provisions contained therein, the application would be brought back to the Committee for further consideration. .  However, this would result in a substantial delay in delivering the proposed development on the site.  A refusal of the application was not advised as the officer recommendation, if agreed would enable the scheme to be delivered in a way that appropriately respected the requirements of the Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan with regard to phasing and housing delivery.

With regard to the possibility of light pollution at night, Mr Harris advised that during the assessment of the application the applicant had agreed that there would be no street lighting.  However there may be a need for low level bollards for certain parking areas and footpaths, which would be dealt with by way of a condition.   There would be the ability to divide the two phases with a hoarding, which would be dealt with by way of the Section 106 agreement.

The Committee favoured an additional condition requesting the provision of electric charging points for vehicles. 

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit with amended condition 3 and one additional condition (electric charging points) agreed.

(Mr Hixson and Mr McAra left the meeting room returning later on during the meeting)