Agenda item

Land Adjoining Greenacres Bosworth Road Measham 

The Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mrs C Cook, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  She expressed support for the officer recommendation and considered the report to be balanced.  She added that the applicant had worked hard with officers to ensure a high quality scheme.  She advised that the number of dwellings had been reduced to accommodate ecological and biodiversity requirements.  She added that all parties were in agreement with the proposed heads of terms in report.  She stated that members would be aware of the application at New Street in respect of affordable housing.  She advised that the applicant was currently working on alleviating the problems with this application and she was confident that these dwellings could be achieved.  She believed that the report before members took account of the full range of NPPF policies.  She concluded that the application site was in a sustainable location and was close to facilities; there were no outstanding issues and she hoped members would support the officer recommendation.

Councillor T Neilson felt that the application was premature given the link to the application on New Street.  He added that the site was outside the limits to development and he felt that there had to be a very good reason to extend the limits to development further.  He commented that the legal agreement linking the two applications was some sort of backroom deal.  He stated that it was crucial that members consider and determine the applications concurrently to give assurance that the scheme was going to be deliverable and viable.  He referred to a previous application in Measham where it was necessary to accept a commuted sum instead of affordable housing.  He noted that although the legal agreement was in place, there was also reference in the update sheet to a commuted sum.  He stated that there were all sorts of question marks which could all be dealt with by dealing with the applications concurrently. 

It was moved by Councillor T Neilson and seconded by Councillor J Legrys that the application be deferred until the linked application at New Street was ready to be brought before the committee. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that it was not the case that the application was premature simply because of the possibility within the Section 106 obligation to link the application to another site that was not at the same stage as this one.  He added that flexibility was built into the legal agreement in order to guarantee the affordable housing provision.

The Chairman then put the motion to defer the application to the vote.  The motion was declared LOST.

Councillor J G Coxon moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer recommendation as set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor G Jones. 

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he had to agree with the officers that this was a standalone application at end of the day and it ticked boxes.  He stated that this was a good site with affordable housing provision, and he did not really think there was a reason to refuse it.

Councillor G Jones stated that he was happy to support the officer recommendation in this instance.  He added that there was a lot of good work going on in and around Measham and he felt this complemented the adjacent site.  He considered that the proposals would be good for Measham.

Councillor J Legrys reiterated that members had to consider what was before them and in this case he felt that there was a great deal of uncertainty, especially in respect of affordable housing, as this site did not contain any.  He stated that there were too many uncertainties and he was not convinced that any affordable housing would actually be provided.  He concluded that he could not support the recommendation.

Councillor G A Allman asked Councillor T Neilson to clarify what he meant by inferring a backdoor deal and how he could qualify this.

Councillor T Neilson clarified that he had stated that the legal agreement seemed to be a bit of a backroom deal given that members had not been involved at all.

Councillor M Specht stated that he would be supporting the officer recommendation and he believed there were actually 2 affordable units proposed for this site, so he considered it misguided to say that there was none.  He added that the aerial view photo shown as part of the presentation was presumably from Google Earth, as the photo was out of date and the adjacent area was now built up.  He concluded that the site was not as isolated as it appeared, and was more an extension of the village envelope.

Councillor L Spence noted that the original application was for 34 dwellings, which had now been reduced to 26.  He noted that the update sheet showed that the affordable housing element had increased in number to 27 units and there was still an aspect of affordable housing to be agreed.  With this in mind, he asked what scope there was to increase the number of dwellings based on this. 

The Chairman advised that the site area would not increase, but more 4 bedroom houses could be split to provide smaller units.

In response to a question from Councillor L Spence, the Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that any further increase in the number of dwellings would require a variation application undertaken by way of a formal process.  He explained that this could theoretically be delegated to officers or called in by a ward member for consideration by the Planning Committee.

The motion to permit the application was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.