Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved, except for Access (excluding internal estate roads) for the erection of up to 24 no. residentialdwellings.

DEFER

Mr Bushell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided on the update sheet.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Chris Agar – Parish Council

Stuart Holmes – Objector

David Neame – Agent

Gareth Evans – District Council (statement read)

Mr Bushell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the weight which could be afforded to progress being made revising the Neighbourhood Plan (NP), Mr Bushell confirmed that the NP was in its very early stages looking at potential housing sites and was not yet sufficiently advanced to carry weight in terms of decision making. The previous application for 22 units was currently the subject of an appeal and had been refused on the basis that the Council at that time was able to demonstrate that it had a five year supply of housing land and that its housing policies which resisted new housing outside of settlement boundaries were up to date.  As of 15th July 2020, the housing policies in the Development Plan which for planning purposes in Loxwood comprises the adopted Local Plan (LP) and the made NP were now out of date and the Council had now introduced its Interim Policy Statement to manage the determination of new applications for housing outside of settlement boundaries.  With regards to the three metre landscape buffer zone as opposed to five metres, Mr Bushell explained that it was necessary to balance the wildlife and screening benefits of the buffer whilst ensuring an effective use of the land for delivering housing and that three metres was considered sufficient for both the planting of vegetation and protection of tree roots and allowing an acceptable density of development.  On the matter of the carriageway widths, the internal layout of the site was a reserved matter which would be assessed as part of the subsequent reserved matters application.

With regard to foul water drainage, Mr Bushell confirmed that there was an on-going dialogue with Southern Water which was looking to improve infrastructure going forward but that on this application Southern Water had raised no objection.

Rev Bowden made a proposal to defer the decision pending a report regarding the progress of the revised NP and further consultations with Southern Water.  The Chairman advised this would result in a delay and therefore a potential appeal against non-determination of the application.  Mr Whitty confirmed that with an appeal currently in progress on the previous application for 22 dwellings a timely decision would be required by the Committee, and added that Southern Water were responsible for providing appropriate services, and a prematurity argument for regarding the proposals running ahead of the NP would not be a sufficient reason for a deferral and therefore he would counsel against such a proposal.

On the matter of the original outline application on the site in 2014 for 25 dwellings which was refused and dismissed on appeal, Mr Bushell explained that this had been refused by Secretary of State as it had been found contrary to the then up to date housing policies in both the newly made NP and adopted LP.

With regards to the access to the proposed development and a question regarding the swept path analysis plan and Vehicle Activated Speed (VAS) sign and specifically its maintenance, Mr Bushell confirmed that the swept path drawing had been supplied within the Transport Statement, and Mr Shaw confirmed that the VAS devices once installed would be adopted by the highway authority for future maintenance.

Following further debate Mr Whitty confirmed that  one of the reasons for refusal in the current appeal was in relation to the housing density (22 units) being too low. This had been increased to 24 in the current application and was now considered acceptable.  Mr Whitty advised that the planning Inspector was now likely to approve the appeal given that the Council could no longer demonstrate it had the required 5 year housing supply. To pursue the appeal under such circumstances was likely to result in an application for an award of costs against the Council.  He also confirmed that refusing the application could be considered as unreasonable behaviour, and also advised that other agencies were responsible for drainage, highway infrastructure, and provision of school places. 

In a vote Members did not accept the officer recommendation to permit the application subject to completion of a S.106 agreement.

The Chairman requested that the reasons for the refusal of the application would be required.  Cllr Wilding proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that work to revise the NP in light of the draft housing allocation in the Local Plan Review had not yet been completed, that an appeal was currently on-going and the outcome of this should be awaited and that Southern Water had not yet provided a commitment to improve the drainage infrastructure in Loxwood. This proposal was seconded by Cllr Potter.  Following comment that these suggestions were not sufficiently robust to justify refusing the application, Mr Whitty confirmed that they would have no basis in planning policy, and on the matter of the prematurity of the NP, the harm must be identified in policy context. 

Miss Golding advised that Members must take responsibility for their decision not to permit the application and a vote on the same recommendation could not be repeated. The recommendation must be altered for a further vote to take place, and she suggested in this regard that a recommendation to defer may be an appropriate way forward. 

Following further debate Mr Whitty advised that a deferral could be voted upon seeking further information in relation to the swept path analysis plan, confirmation of proposed foul drainage infrastructure improvements from Southern Water and the availability of school places from West Sussex County Council as the education authority. These matters were then formally proposed by Cllr Wilding and seconded by Cllr Briscoe.

In a vote Members agreed to defer the decision.

The reasons for deferment would be to gain further information regarding the swept path analysis plan to ensure that the local highway authority considered access to and from the site from the B2133 High Street for larger vehicles such as the Council’s refuse lorries was both safe and reasonable, further assurance from Southern Water that the development could be accommodated within the foul drainage network, and confirmation from the local education authority that local schools could provide sufficient school places for the development.

Members took a five minute break

Cllr Sutton joined the meeting and Cllr McAra left the meeting