Agenda item

Field OS 4011, Toft’s Hill, Stathern

Reference:	Planning Appeal : 19/00741/FUL
Location:	Field OS 4011, Tofts Hill, Stathern
Proposal:	Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and a barn, and their replacement with 9 new dwellings and associated private access driveways

 

 

 

(Councillor Steadman declared her intention to speak as Ward Councillor on this application and here left the Committee and moved into the public speaking gallery.)

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the current position relating to the planning appeal. He explained that although there was no application to consider, the Committee’s view was needed on whether or not the Council was to contest  the appeal and if so planning reasons and evidence were needed to support  the Council’s case. It was mentioned that the costs regime would apply therefore it was important to provide valid reasons and evidence.

 

It was mentioned that the issues of concern were detailed at page 18 of the report.  A cross section of the slope across the hill was also suggested to provide a better understanding of the topography of the site. Mr Worley advised that this information was not currently available.

 

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to  public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a 3 minute presentation:

 

·         Councillor Ken Bray, Chair, Stathern Parish Council

 

In response to Member questions, Councillor Bray advised there was no approved Neighbourhood Plan as yet and there were photographs available to evidence land slippage relating to the site.

 

·         David Mell, Objector

 

·         Helen Broadhurst, Agent, Vale Planning Consultants

 

In response to Member questions, Ms Broadhurst advised that

 

·         the terracing and works identified in the independent report enabled the drainage of the site to be managed

·         the development was on the flatter part of the site

·         the development did not extend beyond the line of the existing buildings on the other side of the road

·         the allocation of 3 minutes was not long enough to address all the technical queries and details relating to the site but referred the Committee to the independent review of the ground conditions report for such information

·         the independent report outlined a safe and deliverable strategy for dealing with the land matters raised

·         the developer did not have permission to take samples from neighbouring sites and had to rely on ground samples from the site in question and she felt these provided a good representation of the site and surrounding land

·         the independent report had been commissioned in February and had been delayed due to the lockdown and had not been  available until June

·         the report contained all the information needed to enable the development of the site to go ahead

·         the report took into account variable weather conditions and the water movement solutions which had been carefully designed to manage the drainage of the site

·         Dr Cooper’s objection being received on the day of the February Committee meeting did not allow her client the opportunity to respond and address the concerns raised and this made non-determination an option as a way forward

·         the development proposals will manage the surface water and mean that water will not flow in the same way as on the current green field site

 

·         Councillor Mel Steadman – Ward Councillor

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery referred to section 5.1 of the original report and that the application met policies SS1 and SS2 but not SS3. He also agreed with the speakers that  the adjacent land to the site needed to be evaluated.

 

The meeting was adjourned for approximately 5 minutes due to Mr Worley having connectivity issues. 

 

Mr Worley referred to the independent report and felt there was still doubt in the robustness of the proposals and he could not offer assurance based on the information provided. The reason given for the appeal for non-determination was that the applicant was not given sufficient time to respond to the representation received which was detailed in the report. The Council would have preferred to have worked with the applicant rather than following an appeal for the non-determination. It was noted that in his opinion detailed technical information had not been supplied.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         There was concern at the potential for flooding on the site caused by surface water flow from the adjoining hillside

·         Members felt they would like more information on the technical detail of how the proposed water management scheme would work

·         Members felt they needed all of the above information before they could make a decision on the application

·         Members felt duty bound to consider the late representation in February before determining the application

·         Members were disappointed that the applicant chose to appeal for non-determination instead of progressing the application including ongoing discussions with officers

·         Members were in agreement with the officer recommendation and also considered that the application did not meet policy SS3

·         It was a concern that there was no affordable housing on the site and therefore no benefit to the community in approving the development

·         It was felt that the development would have a negative impact on neighbouring properties

·         Members did not feel assured that the retaining walls and other measures proposed would be enough to alleviate the flood risk and needed more information to be able to make a decision on the application and would welcome the Inspector’s opinion on the application

·         There were also concerns as to the number of houses squeezed into the site and queried whether the housing mix could be improved

·         It was noted that the appeal deadline for the Committee’s submission was 27 July 2020 and should Members wish to add to the officer’s recommendation, delegated authority could be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery to draft the appropriate wording based on discussions at the meeting

·         Members felt that harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits and this should be added to the decision along with the development being in conflict with policies EN1, EN6 and EN13

 

Councillor Faulkner proposed the recommendation in the report and in addition that delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery to finalise the wording and add reference to policies EN1, EN6 and EN13  and that the harm outweighed the benefits of the development.  Councillor Glancy seconded the motion.

 

RESOLVED That the Committee

 

(1)  instructs that the appeal is opposed on the basis that there remains insufficient information to enable a conclusion to be drawn on the issues of land stability, hydrology and as a result the adequacy of the proposed drainage system; and

 

(1)  delegates authority to the Assistant Director for Planning and Delivery to finalise the wording and add  reference to policies EN1, EN6 and EN13  and that the harm was unacceptable.

 

 (Unanimous)

 

(Councillor Steadman here re-joined the Committee.)

 

REASONS

 

These issues were the reason for deferral in February 2020 and are considered to remain unresolved. In respect of other issues the officer recommendation was for approval but the Committee is at liberty to decide which of them it may consider also represent ‘grounds of opposition’ (equivalent to ‘reasons for refusal’ in the context of an undetermined planning application).

 

The Committee was reminded that the appeal process is a statutory decision making process and the ‘disciplines’ of decision making are equally applicable. All reason(s) forwarded must therefore be soundly based on planning grounds and supported by evidence, in exactly the way that reasons for refusal are configured when the Council is making the determination.