Agenda item

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RG:  has consulted the SPD on garden land development and looked at the access, and was surprised that Highways Officers consider three houses in a row on a single access conforms with our policy?

MP, in response:

-          was thrown by reference to ‘our policy’ – the SPD is not part of highways policy in the local plan.

RG:  said according to the SPD, one access serving three houses is not permissible.

MS:  agreed with this statement.

CS, in response:

-          on the point of access, said there is already existing access to serve two dwellings, and the application is indicative of a third dwelling.  It is in accordance with the SPD, and there are no objections from Highways.  Basing each application on its own merits, this proposal is considered acceptable.

LG:  said if this application is granted, it makes nonsense of the £60k spent on the SPD which, on page 36, shows very clearly that two dwellings sharing the same access is not acceptable.  Reminded Members of a costly appeal on a property down the track in the greenbelt – this area is still in the greenbelt and the resident in objection is likely to go to the Local Government Ombudsman if the application is approved.  Said that three dwellings with one access is the worst application for backland development he had seen – there have been several for two, but this application is nonsense and should be thrown out of the window.

CS, in response:

-          regarding access, said the SPD states that tandem development is not normally accepted, but as the access already serves two properties, the question is what additional harm a third dwelling will cause.  Based on the response from Highways, it will cause no additional harm.

MS:  said it would cause harm, and would contravene Policy CP7, compromising the house on the right, and representing over-development of the land.  Moved to refuse on CP7.

SW:  did not normally have much sympathy with the SPD, but considered this to be ridiculous.  Following on from an argument at last month’s committee, was concerned about ‘drip feed’ development, adding houses one by one.  Has sympathy with the SPD in this case.

RG:  noted the words used by the officers and the SPD, that this kind of development would not normally be permitted. Has not always agreed with LG on this, and considers two dwellings are sometimes OK on the principle of the SPD, but thought this application is pushing things too far, and supports MS’s move to refuse.

LG:  told Members that he had contacted the case officer and been told that this application was likely to be refused in accordance with the SPD, only to be informed two days later that there had been a change of mind and the application would now be recommended for approval.  Thought this very odd, as the application had not changed, and said Members need to be able to trust what officers say.  Thought this a poor example, showing how not to do it.

MJC, in response:

-          said it was not quite as simple as this.  Said CS had asked LG whether, if she was minded to refuse the application on the SPD, he would still want it to come to planning committee – this was a reasonable question to ask;

-          however, as CS had pointed out clearly, the SPD states that this type of development is not normally permitted which means it is acceptable in certain circumstances.  Said Members had been on site and will have noted the mixed grain of the area, similar to Church Road.  It was felt, therefore, that there would be no particular harm in allowing an extra dwelling here;

-          said if Members feel there is harm, they need to define it, and not simply rely on Page 36 of the SPG as evidence.  Officers need to hear more if the application is to be refused;

-          to LG, said this land has never been in the greenbelt. 

LG:  re-stated that it is.

MS:  said the SPD is applicable here and should be included as a refusal reason.  Said CP7(c) is also relevant – we can’t keep filling little spaces with dwellings.  Said looking at the map makes it clear that enough is enough and one more dwelling will be over-development of the site.

Vote taken on MS’s move to refuse on CP7(c) and the SPG on GardenLand Development

5 in support

4 in objection

2 abstentions

REFUSE

The meeting ended at 10.40pm