Agenda item

Erect 12 No. dwellings, form vehicular access from Motcombe Road and carry out other associated works.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site which was situated with an existing residential development and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed site layout plan, distant views towards the site location and initial and amended street scenes were also included. The landscape scheme was also discussed, and members were informed that there were no issues regarding design and appearance. The Case Officer’s presentation also highlighted parking which was considered acceptable by highways. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions and completion of section 106 agreement or refuse if the development failed to secure obligations by 24^th April 2024 or such extended time as agreed by Head of Planning.

Public Participation

Residents of Motcombe spoke in objection to the application. They highlighted their concerns regarding pedestrian safety as Motcombe was surrounded by narrow country roads which weren’t safe to walk. The development of more houses would add to road traffic due to additional residents and construction workers. Flooding and sewage were also another concern for residents. They felt as though this had been ignored and were not satisfied by the planning officer’s response. The management of the attenuation pond and an increase in surface water flooding due to climate change were also a cause of discussion. Residents explained that flooding was already an issue due to other developments and an additional would be unforgiveable. In addition to this, residents also raised concerns regarding the proposed materials. They did not feel as though they were in keeping with the area and were disappointed that there was no inclusion of solar panels or electrical charging points. On balance, residents felt that another development would impact privacy of neighbouring properties, additional road users would impact the climate and an increasing danger for road users. They also did not feel as though there was a sufficient drainage strategy, and the development would impact the character of the area. They hoped members would refuse the officer’s recommendation.

The agent spoke in support of the application. He commended the quality of the officer’s report and presentation. Mr Miell informed members that the site was intended to be a high-quality residential development. He highlighted to members that the economy had changed and there had been a gap within the housing market, therefore the proposal was not viable to include affordable housing. Mr Miell discussed the housing mix and the character of the development. The site was not within the flood zone and was supported by drainage strategy. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Dunlop spoke in objection to the application. He referred to the neighbourhood plan and had concerns regarding the deliverability of the proposal. He did not feel as though residents’ sewage and flooding concerns had been addressed and felt as though there would be significant damage to properties from overlooking and flooding. Cllr Dunlop reiterated concerns regarding road safety. He had noted the objections from residents and did not have confidence in the proposal and could not identify any public benefits.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding safety of road users and nutrient neutrality.

·       Confirmation on proposed materials for the road surface and surface water drainage.

·       Queried flooding assessments and drainage strategies.

·       Clarification on the location of attenuation pond.

·       Concerns regarding an increase in flooding.

·       Members did not feel as though the design and materials were in keeping with the area.

·       Lack of affordable housing

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr David Taylor.

Decision: To refuse the application for reasons of inappropriate design (cladding materials and layout) and landscape, being too formalised, linear and urban in character which was not appropriate to an edge of village setting, and that insufficient details of the surface water drainage have been submitted to satisfy concerns that the development could lead to unacceptable impacts by exacerbating surface water/sewage in the locality.