Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

The local Member for the Drybridge Ward, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the application and outlined the following points:

·         Approval of the application will provide 25 affordable homes which are much needed.

·         £110,000 from this site will go towards off site play provision.

·         There are some issues that need to be addressed, namely:

-       The footpath from the roundabout up to the development site entrance needs to be increased in width to allow for motorised disabled vehicles.

-       A pedestrian crossing is needed on the road near to the skatepark.

-       An archaeological watching brief would be important on the site.

A member of the Planning Committee considered that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

·         Concern was expressed regarding the soundness of condition 2 - the submission of reserved matters within 12 months.

·         There is no developer attached to the project. Therefore, negotiations and a fully drawn up scheme within 12 months will be difficult to achieve.

·         Paragraph 5.1.4 of the report refers to the appeal which has been dismissed on the basis of prematurity.  This could be argued as being valid as there will be a review of the Local Development Plan (LDP) in the autumn of 2017.

·         The development does not satisfy national and local policies in respect of identifying housing development land, as indicated in the inspector’s report.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that in terms of the timescales regarding conditions, the regulations state that the Authority may give less than the usual five years and in respect of an outline consent, the Authority may give less than the standard time periods.  The applicant has agreed to this approach.

He acknowledged that the LDP should be a starting point but national planning policy is clear in that when the Authority does not have the five year land supply, then other sites have to be identified for the much needed housing.  Appeal decisions acknowledge this approach.

In terms of the appeals decision, this matter has to be weighed up in the balance with land supply and the other policies within the plan.  The scenario is different in terms of prematurity. As an Authority, we are at the end of the LDP cycle with a new LDP likely to be three years away.  Therefore, developments cannot be held in abeyance for this period of time.

The local Member stated that the site is outside of the LDP but the Authority is obtaining 35% affordable housing (25 units) from this proposed development which will be considerable for the town.

Members expressed concern that the application fell outside of the LDP.  However, it was considered that the proposed development was much needed and therefore expressed support for the application.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2017/00539 be approved subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval              -           12

Against approval      -           1

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00539 be approved subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.