Agenda item

(Councillor Joyce Hutchinson had declared a personal interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

Further to the report the Planning Officer reported that the developer intended to provide 9 affordable homes on the site with a commuted payment for a further 16 affordable dwellings in another location.  However, the Council's Housing Officer had been consulted and had asked for 18 affordable homes on this site with commuted payments for a further 7 homes elsewhere.  The Planning Officer therefore considered that an additional reason for refusing the application should be included regarding insufficient affordable housing. 

The Officer reported that new information on services at the site had been received and would have to be the subject of further consultation.  As the applicants had appealed against the Council's non-determination of the application within the eight week period, the recommendation from the officers was amended to 'minded to refuse'. 

The comments of the Letcombe Brook Officer were reported to the meeting.  The officer believed that the application would have a negative impact on protected species and their habitats along the Letcombe Brook, both immediately adjacent to the development site and elsewhere.  The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Officer had objected to the impact on the character of the AONB.  It was suggested that this could be added to reason no.3 in the report.  The Planning Officer also considered that reason no.6 in the report should be deleted and replaced by the affordable housing reason. 

Jo Langdon, a Planning Consultant to the Parish Council, spoke on that Parish's behalf objecting to the application.  She believed the new owners of the site had been insensitive to the village and had not considered the impact on the Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She supported the Planning Officers' recommendations for the main application but disagreed with the recommendation for the demolition of buildings on the site.  She believed that these buildings should be retained as they contributed to the character of the Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She pointed to Planning Policy Guidance in this respect.  She urged the Committee to refuse both applications. 

Mr Priest made a statement objecting to the application.  He believed the application showed contempt for this small downland village, which was blighted by the proposed development.  He questioned why the buildings should be demolished if there was no application approved.  There would be no link to history if the site was cleared.  He pointed out that the village was built on Greensand, which required deeper building foundations.  The application provided no detail of precautions to be taken during demolition, which was likely to cause damage to the village environment and wildlife at the site.  He urged the Committee to refuse both applications. 

The Local Member believed that the buildings proposed for demolition would be visible and there would be an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area if they were demolished.  He referred to Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 regarding retaining buildings in a Conservation Area until an acceptable redevelopment permission had been granted.  He believed this applied in this case. 

The Committee considered that the development of 99 dwellings was unsustainable on this site and would have a severe impact on the village.  It was also contrary to Local Plan policies and concerns were expressed at the design and layout proposed.  It was considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Conservation Area. 

Members also considered that Conservation Area consent to demolish existing buildings on the site should be refused as the Committee could not be sure what would be built in their place.  The test to be applied was what contribution the building would make to the character of the Conservation Area.  Members considered that there was no acceptable replacement.  The loss of the existing buildings would impact on the character of the Conservation Area as would the proposed development in its current form.  Members considered that applications for Conservation Area consent should always be tied to the letting of a contract fir a new development which had been granted planning permission.

RESOLVED    (by 17 votes to nil)

(a)               that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair to agree the reasons that application LRE/957/62-X would have been refused had the decision still rested with the Council, such reasons to include 1 to 5 set out in the report, with an addition to reason 1 to clarify the number of dwellings in the village, with an addition to reason 3 that the application would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and to add a new reason 6 (to replace that set out in the report) to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient affordable housing being allocated to the site; and

(a)               that application LRE/957/63-CA be deferred, the Committee being minded to refuse it, with the reasons for refusal to be brought back to the a future meeting of the Committee.