Agenda item

Report No: DEV/SE/18/045

Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) - 9no. dwellings

Outline Planning Application (all matters reserved) - 9no. dwellings

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee meeting on 4 October 2018 following consideration by the Delegation Panel and in light of the objection received from the Parish Council.

At the October meeting Members resolved that they were MINDED TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION, CONTARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, due to the following reasons:

1.   The evidence and risk of flooding in the vicinity and the further impact the development could have on this;

2.   Reservations relating to the fact that neither the Borough Council or a registered housing provider had been approached by the applicant with regard to the management of the affordable housing that was proposed – therefore being unable to demonstrate local need; and

3.   The lack of detail provided, in light of it being an outline application.

In light of the resolution, Officers invoked the Decision Making Protocol and the report before the Committee now also, therefore, contained a risk assessment.

A Member site visit was held prior to the October Committee.  Officers were continuing to recommend that the application be approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, as set out in Paragraph 32 of Report No DEV/SE/18/045.

As part of her presentation the Senior Planning Officer explained that an additional condition had been added which outlined mitigation required in respect of flooding.

Members were also advised that since the October Committee meeting the Council’s Strategic Housing team had been in contact with the applicant and local registered providers and Officers were content that the proposed affordable housing could be delivered via the scheme.

Speaker:      Councillor Clive Mears (Bradfield Combust with Stanningfield Parish Council) spoke against the application

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White (Ward Member: Rougham) raised concerns at the mitigation proposed in the additional condition; which she considered would just relocate the flooding from the application site to elsewhere in the village.  This concern was echoed by a number of other Members.

Councillor Terry Clements made reference to a recent appeal decision on the site relating to landscape impact.  The Service Manager (Planning – Development) reminded the Committee that each application was to be considered on its own merits and to refer to the refusal reasons previously provided by Councillors.

Councillor David Nettleton proposed that the application be refused, for the two reasons as proposed by the Officer in Section C of the report.  This was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, for the following reasons:

1.   Due to the unique topography of the site which sits in a hollow it appears to be subject to high risk of surface water flooding. Whilst a flood risk assessment has been submitted listing various recommendations to combat this risk these are not fully detailed and neither is it identified how they would be achievable within the site. Without further comfort that this issue can be overcome the scheme is considered to conflict with DM6 of the Development Management Policies Document which requires schemes to detail the management of on-site drainage so as not to cause or exacerbate flooding elsewhere and to paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that development should be directed away from areas at highest risk; and

2.   The application site is located within the Countryside where locally adopted policies seek to restrict unsustainable development. Without submission of a fully detailed scheme and commitment from a registered provider the Local Authority is not satisfied that an entirely affordable housing development is achievable. As such, the proposal conflicts with CS5 of the Core Strategy which requires the mix, size, type and tenure of affordable homes to be identified as well as DM5 of the Development Management Policies Document which allows residential development outside of Housing Settlement Boundaries in exceptional circumstances only.