Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling, double garage and stores and construction of 4 No. dwellings and associated infrastructure, including access, parking, landscaping and ancillary works.

Upon proposal, the Planning Committee approved via affirmation, minus the vote of Councillor Claire Daunton, the change of wording in condition 6, replacing “by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted” with “by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted”.

By four votes to two, with two abstentions and minus the vote of Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton, the Planning Committee approved the application, subject to the updated conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The report was presented by the Senior Planning Officer. A member of the public, Cathy Shaw, spoke in opposition to the application and, when questioned, informed the Committee that flooding in the area was affecting a number of properties, many of which had installed pumps to their properties to remove water runoff due to the recurring flooding. The Committee was also addressed by the agent of the applicant, Kath Slater, who answered questions from Members. When questioned if the chalk/ clay boundary had been assessed, the agent informed the Committee that geotechnical analysis would take place as part of the satisfaction of the condition regarding the drainage plan. The agent informed Members that a drainage assessment had not been done as the site was in flood zone 1 and was deemed to have a low risk of flooding, and also stated that the applicant would accept a rewording of the drainage condition. Councillor Carolyn Postgate, acting on behalf of and with the authorisation of Coton Parish Council, also made a representation. The Councillor clarified that the Parish Council felt that the application was in contravention of policies HQ/1, H/16 and NH/8, and also answered questions on traffic, stating that vehicles often exceed the speed limit on the highway adjoining the pre-existing access to the site and that the increased use of the site access could pose a danger to residents.

In the debate, Members questioned if policy H16 applied to the application and, if so, how compliance was being achieved. The Delivery Manager informed the Committee that policy H16 did apply and Officers felt that the application complied with the policy, but stated that it was ultimately up to Members to decide if they felt satisfied that the application was compliant with the policy. The Senior Planning Officer noted that policy H/16 had been taken into account and also stated that Officers felt that policy HQ/1 had also been satisfied and that the development would not be detrimental to the character of the area. In response to a question on policy NH/8, the Delivery Manager noted that the site was separated from the green belt by an area of land and that the development was low density which would further mitigate impact on the green belt. Members were satisfied that the application would not impact the listed building in close proximity to the development, but consensus on the impact on the green belt was not found. Further concerns were expressed over parking and highways. The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that, whilst on-street parking would be lost, ample parking would be provided on the site. The Committee indicated their surprise at the lack of objection to the application from the Highways Authority, but the Senior Planning Lawyer informed Members that the lack of objection meant that highways concerns would not be a valid reason for refusal. Members noted that the drainage scheme was not relevant to the application in front of them and accepted that it would be discussed at a later date but still conveyed reservations over drainage and expressed disappointment over the lack of assessment of flooding and drainage.

Upon proposal by Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Dr. Richard Williams, the Planning Committee approved via affirmation, minus the vote of Councillor Claire Daunton, the change of wording in condition 6, replacing “by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted” with “by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted”.

The Delivery Manager clarified that, if Members were to refuse the application, the reasons for refusal would be the lack of compliance with policies HQ/1 and H/16. Members felt that policy NH/8 would also be a reason for refusal.

By four votes to two (Councillors Henry Batchelor, Peter Fane, Judith Rippeth and Geoff Harvey voted for whilst Councillors Heather Williams and Dr. Richard Williams voted against), with two abstentions (Councillors Dr. Tumi Hawkins and Dr. Martin Cahn) and minus the vote of Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton, the Planning Committee approved the application, subject to the updated conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.