Agenda item

5 no. residential dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access and hard and soft landscaping.

Deferred for site visit.

Mr Mew presented the report to Committee. Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet, which included; additional addendums to the report and an Additional Condition to address on-site water neutrality measures.

Mr Mew drew the Committees attention to paragraph 7.11 (page 58) of the report. He informed members that it was important to note that following a recent public inquiry the Planning Inspector had found the Council’s housing land supply to be below five years. Mr Mew explained that as the Council no longer had a five-year housing land supply the tilted balance must be applied when determining planning applications.

Mr Mew outlined the site location; which was located outside the Loxwood settlement boundary. The side was bordered on three sides by existing developments. Mr Mew highlighted the historic buildings and confirmed there was a 30m distance between them and the proposed development.

The Committee were shown details of the proposed site layout and how it would be accessed from Willetts Close. The development would be comprised of five dwellings including;

-       x2 two-bedroom dwellings

-       x2 three-bedroom dwellings

-       x1 four-bedroom dwelling.

Mr Mew showed site elevations and confirmed the proposed materials were consistent with the local area.

Mr Mew detailed the measures proposed by the developer to achieve water neutrality and explained how a two-pronged approach was being taken with both onsite and offsite measures (as set out in the report from page 68). He explained the offsite measures would be controlled through a S106 with all interested parties involved, including Horsham District Council and the South Downs National Park.

Natural England had been consulted on the proposed mitigation measures as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and was satisfied that water neutrality could be achieved through the proposed measures.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Tony Colling – Loxwood Parish Council

Mr Charles Todhunter – Objector*

Mrs Hannah Carey – Objector*

Mrs Kathryn Smalley – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Huw James – Agent

Cllr Gareth Evans – CDC Ward Member (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

*prior to speaking the Chairman asked both Mr Todhunter and Mrs Carey to confirm that they were speaking as an individual and not as a representative of the Parish Council, both confirmed they were speaking as individuals.

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the Interim Position Statement (IPS) and what weight it carried; Mr Mew confirmed the IPS was a guidance document and not policy.  The IPS was used to help direct development to the most appropriate locations. When the tilted balance is engaged any adverse impacts must demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In response to concerns regarding the artificial subdivision of the site; Mr Mew agreed that it appeared some artificial subdivision of the site had taken place. However, whilst this was not encouraged within the IPS, it did not mean the site was not suitable and should be considered.

With regards to ‘double counting’ in terms of water neutrality; Mr Mew confirmed the proposed off-site measures would be for the sole benefit of the application being considered. He explained the development where the offsite measures were being installed had been permitted before the issue of water neutrality and were not required to deliver any mitigation measures. In addition; the off-site mitigation measures would be controlled through a S106 with all interested parties being a signatory, whilst the on-site mitigation measures would be controlled through condition.

In response to concerns regarding rainwater harvesting as a mitigation measure for water neutrality; Ms Stevens advised the Committee that Natural England were the statutory body responsible for managing water neutrality and advising on what mitigation measures were acceptable. She confirmed rainwater harvesting, despite concerns raised by the Committee, was an accepted mitigation measure approved by Natural England.

On the matter of the proposed landscaping condition; Ms Stevens explained that following a series of in-house discussions and legal advice, the five-year time frame for maintenance and replacement from standard landscaping conditions had been removed. By removing the fixed time from the condition applicants would be required to maintain and replace any planting in perpetuity.

In response to concerns regarding the management of the shared area of the development; Mr Mew informed the Committee this would be addressed through Condition 10 and drew their attention to page 72. However, in response to the Committee’s concern an additional Condition would be included to ensure appropriate management of the three open areas is maintained.

On the matter of bat mitigation; Mr Mew confirmed that bat mitigation measures would be included as part of the ecology appraisal submitted as part of the application. 

In response to concerns raised over foul sewage; Ms Bell informed the committee that as part of their consultation response Southern Water had requested the informative detailed in para 6.3 (page 49) be included with any permission granted. She clarified they had not requested any off-site works to be undertaken to accommodate the development, however, they would require a formal application for the connection. Ms Bell advised the proposed informative could be included as a condition if the application were permitted.

On the matter of the five-year housing land supply (5YHLS); Ms Stevens informed the Committee the 5YHLS was produced on an annual basis by the Planning Policy.  The most recent published position showed the council had a 5.3 5YHLS, however, this had been tested at appeal and failed. Ms Stevens explained the current 5YHLS had been found to be 4.8 years at the most recent appeal, and advice from Counsel was that to continue to state a 5 year supply position would likely result in unreasonable behaviour and award of costs.  This means the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply at this time and the tilted balance must be applied where necessary. Ms Stevens confirmed the 5YHLS was a material consideration. 

On the matter of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan; Ms Stevens clarified that the Plan did form part of the Development Plan and had been taken into consideration for example in the design of the buildings and proposed materials.

With regards to the installation of solar panels; Mr Mew confirmed there would be 10 solar panels installed on each of the two semi-detached units and 12 on each of the three detached houses as part of the development.

On the matter of windfall housing; Mr Mew confirmed any windfall housing would contribute to supply.

Having listened to the discussion Cllr Brisbane proposed the application be deferred for a site visit for the following reasons;

-       to further understand whether there is likely to be any impact on the listed buildings.

-       to understand the how the site has been subdivided.

It was also requested that when the application is brought back to Committee further explanation is provided for the issues;

-       the current 5 YHLS position

-       Water neutrality

The proposal was seconded by Cllr Sharp.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of Cllr Brisbane’s proposal to defer for a site visit.

Resolved; Defer for a site visit.  

*Members took a ten-minute break.

*Cllr Briscoe left the meeting at 12.02pm