Agenda item

Part demolition of existing outbuildings with the retention of one industrial unit (Unit B); Change of use of retained industrial unit (Unit B) from Class B2/B8 to B1(c)/B8; and, erection of 8 no. detached dwellings, play area, landscaping and associated works.

Refuse.

Miss Bell presented the item to Members.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Sara Burrell – Parish Council

Paul White - Agent

Miss Bell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the amount of employment the site would generate, taking into consideration the size of the plot, number of building and designated usage (part B8 and B1C) it would be a significant number, but could not provide a precise figure.  Light pollution from the proposed limited number of roof-lights could be controlled by way of a condition.  There was an expectation that security lighting would be installed but light emission could be minimised, and the access road would not be lit.  With regards to the area being located within a flood zone, a condition would be included stating that the floor level would be no lower than 29.2 metres ‘above ordnance datum’.  On the matter of whether the proposal was an efficient use of land for housing, the site was wider than the allocation of the Neighbourhood Plan which drew the boundary tight to the employment development, and this was the reason for the highlighting of an inconsistency with the plan.  With regards to the open space, a development of eight dwellings would not trigger such a requirement (which was ten units) and fifty units would trigger the requirement for an equipped play area.  With regards to further dwellings at a future date, the submission of a planning application would be required.   Miss Bell confirmed that residential gardens would be expected to have close boarded fencing and the developer had also given an undertaking that trees would be planted and a landscaping proposal would be expected.  With regards to foul water, Miss Bell believed this location may be too great a distance from the sewer to connect with it and the Environment Agency had commented that the development may require an environmental permit which was obtained via a separate process, although had not raised an objection.  Miss Bell confirmed the access road currently served the employment land and therefore was likely to be suitable, but would need to be maintained, and details of all surfaces within the site itself would be required.  On the matter of the timing and current status of the Neighbourhood Plan, Miss Bell partially agreed that had the neighbourhood plan been a made document, and had an application been submitted which met the requirements of the made neighbourhood plan, the recommendation would have been positive, but added that the application did not wholly comply with the neighbourhood plan and the neighbourhood plan was not currently a made document.  On the matter of the loss of the industrial unit, the Inspector had accepted this at the previous appeal and therefore the application could not be refused based on this loss. 

With regards to the refusal for the original planning application, Miss Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the appeal inspector’s comments which included stating the proposal to be unsustainably located, but would not result in a material loss of industrial land.  Should the current application be approved, it would be deferred for a S106 agreement, and a contribution would be required for affordable housing as the number of units proposed, were below the eleven units which would trigger the requirement for the provision of affordable housing within the site.  Miss Bell confirmed that a condition would be included to seek ecological enhancements if the application was permitted.  With regards to the home offices, the housing officer had concerns that these rooms may be used as bedrooms and therefore the applicant had removed windows and included roof-lights.  It was considered that this would have an impact on amenity for occupiers and the inclusion of windows would be sought.  Miss Bell explained the bell-mouth of the access road was five metres in width and would reduce to 2.5 metres in width, a pavement had not been included and it would not be possible to widen the road.

Mr Whitty added that if Members granted permission, officers would find this contrary to the development plan and therefore this departure would have to be advertised.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that as the open space and equipped play area was not required by policy, this could not be secured within a S106 agreement. 

With regards to flood zone, Miss Bell confirmed that the site was predominantly in flood zone 1, and other parts of the site were in flood zone 2 and 3 adjacent to the water course running to the north of the site across the access road.  On the matter of where the dwellings would be located within the site and use of land, Miss Bell explained that applicant had looked to keeping the housing development itself within the previous developed land boundary and to also reflect the boundary within the Neighbourhood Plan site, but the open space was outside the area of previously developed land.  Furthermore the amount of open space could not be justified.  Miss Bell added in response to the location being within a rural area, that eight dwellings in an urban area would not require a commuted sum for affordable housing.  Mr Whitty also added on the matter of efficient use of land, the over-provision of open public land was outside the existing previously development area, and advised that consideration for housing should be restricted to the area where the current built form existed.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

Members took a five minute break.