Issue - meetings

Under the scheme of public participation, David Whiteley, Martin May and Graham Agnew spoke against the application. Paul Tunstall (JWPC) spoke in support of the application. 

It was proposed by Councillor Dave Brookes and seconded by Councillor Cary Mathews:

“That the application be refused in line with the officer recommendation as set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Councillors voted in favour, with none against, and 1 abstained, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused in line with the officer recommendation as set out in the Committee Report:

1.    The proposed development is considered aggregate to the wider outline planning permission for 15 dwellings that prevails across the land and accordingly, the proposed development must contribute to affordable housing provision and other s106 contributions deemed necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development. In this case, Policy DM3 dictates that the scheme should deliver an affordable housing quantum of 40% but it presently proposes no affordable units at all. The proposal fails to sufficiently justify the lack of affordable housing (through the submitted viability argument) as part of the scheme and the proposed development is therefore considered contrary to policy DM3 of the Development Management Development Plan Document and paragraphs 58 and 63 of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework.