Issue - meetings

It was proposed by Councillor Kevin Frea and seconded by Councillor Joyce Pritchard:

“That the application be refused subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report and subject to the following amendment to refusal reason number 2:

The proposed development, by virtue of its siting and layout with the parking court to the rear, poorly relates to the existing built form and settlement pattern of the village.   It would result in an isolated pocket of development, separated by intervening areas of open space and landscaping, from surrounding development that would diminish the sensitive transition from the built environment to the surrounding countryside secured as part of the original planning permission for the wider site.  Consequently, the proposal is considered to constitutes poor design, which does not positively contribute to its surroundings and would result in localised visual harm, contrary to policies DM4, DM29 and DM46 of the Development Management DPD Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Upon being put to the vote, all 14 Councillors voted unanimously in favour, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused subject to the conditions set out in the Committee Report:

1.    The proposed development is considered aggregate to the wider development and in the absence of securing policy compliant affordable housing as part of the original planning permission, the proposed development must contribute to affordable housing provision and other s106 contributions deemed necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development.  The proposed development is considered contrary to policy DM3 of the Development Management Development Plan Document and paragraphs 58 and 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as the applicant has failed to sufficiently justify the lack of affordable housing (as part of their viability argument) as part of the proposal. 

and subject to the following amendment to refusal reason number 2:

2.    The proposed development, by virtue of its siting and layout with the parking court to the rear, poorly relates to the existing built form and settlement pattern of the village. It would result in an isolated pocket of development, separated by intervening areas of open space and landscaping, from surrounding development that would diminish the sensitive transition from the built environment to the surrounding countryside secured as part of the original planning permission for the wider site.  Consequently, the proposal is considered to constitutes poor design, which does not positively contribute to its surroundings and would result in localised visual harm, contrary to policies DM4, DM29 and DM46 of the Development Management DPD Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.