Agenda item

Refuse Against Offer Recommendation

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet which included that the applicant had agreed that the extant permission can be revoked, to ensure it was not constructed alongside the proposed development.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Tim Russell – Parish Council

Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

With regards to the estate road Mr Mew advised that the applicant had confirmed agreement to use appropriate materials to withstand the weight of a refuse vehicle and the wording of the relevant condition could be altered to reflect this requirement.   In relation to the air source heat pumps Mr Mew confirmed that a condition was included which required the details of technical specification and locations to be submitted.  With regards to the ownership of the highway land, Mr Mew advised that the road would be built to an adoptable standard and the intention was for it to be adopted.  Should the road not be adopted, a management company will be engaged for maintenance, but the area inside and outside the visibility splay would be adopted regardless to provide the highways authority with control of this area.  Mr Mew confirmed that a condition was included regarding the access on to Mill lane, which would be retained for pedestrian access and where it crossed third party land this would be secured via Section106.

With regards to the density Mr Mew provided a wider plan which showed sparser development along Lagness Road, with properties sitting in closer proximity in locations adjacent to the site, and therefore indicated that this proposal was not out of character for the area.  Mr Mew further explained that a recent ‘Interim Position’ scheme for North Mundham provided 32 dwellings per hectare and this development provided 36 dwellings per hectare, adding that the orientation of the site reduced the perception of coalescence.  The development also benefitted residents in Mill Lane by creating a footpath link and easier crossing point.

With regards to the weight afforded to coalescence, Mr Whitty explained that it was a material consideration, but this should be viewed against whether it outweighed the benefit of providing housing.  An Inspector would not just examine a map, but also consider the other factors such as how apparent it was from the road, whether there were other properties between the proposed development and the neighbouring settlement, and how well screened it was.  Mr Whitty advised that officers had taken these matters into consideration and did not believe that this would gain favour in an appeal, as it would not outweigh the benefits of providing housing. 

Mr Whitty further advised that the retention of landscaping could not be required in perpetuity, as confirmed by case law.  A limit of five years had been set but given the importance of the perception of coalescence that could be extended to ten years and the use of it in perpetuity as a landscape buffer.  

With regards to solar panels, Mr Mew confirmed that they were not included within the scheme.  Mr Whitty added that there was a requirement to put forward a suite of measures related to energy efficiency which had been included.

On the matter of the lack of a five year land supply, Mr Whitty responded that the proposal was located beyond the settlement boundary, but was adjacent and therefore in principle was likely to be acceptable to an Inspector.  With regards to coalescence, an Inspector would consider the number of nine houses against the lack of five year supply and this was likely to be significant factor alongside the potential for coalescence to be mitigated by landscaping.

Rev. Bowden made a proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of cumulative perceived coalescence of settlements contrary to the Interim Position Statement, which was seconded by Mr Oakley with the addition of the issue regarding inappropriate density which exacerbated the perception of cumulative perceived coalescence.  

In a vote Members agreed the proposal to refuse the application due the cumulative perceived coalescence of settlements reinforced by the density of the development.

Recommendation to Refuseagainst officer recommendation agreed.

Members took a ten minute break