Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 3 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom affordable Passivhaus dwellings, with associated parking, garden areas and landscaping, following demolition of existing garages. (Amended plans recv'd 1/8/2018, 03/10/2018 and 08.10.2018), (Amended plans rec'd 09.10.2018)

This application would have normally been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Valerie White due to her concerns in respect of; the removal of existing parking, level of proposed parking and highway safety.  Cllr White also raised concern in respect of over development of the site, loss of light/sunlight and loss of privacy.

Members were advised of the following updates on the application:

“Update to report - Paragraph 7.4.8 states that no trees are proposed to be removed or pruned on the site.  The Monterey Cypress tree adjacent 94 Bagshot Green is proposed for removal, the tree is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and its location close to the adjacent dwelling is unsustainable in the long term.  The Arboricultural Officer confirms that the tree is also coming to the end of its life and its removal is recommended in line with good arboricultural management across the site.   On that basis no objections are raised.  

During the member site visit, questions were asked about the Council’s progress toward delivering its affordable housing targets.  The following table illustrates the affordable housing completions for 2016/17 and 2017/18 

It is important to note that a significant quantity of applications now come through as prior notifications for the conversion of offices, or in some cases light industrial or retail uses, to residential accommodation. Such applications cannot require developers to provide affordable housing.

The Government also issued a Written Ministerial Statement in November 2014 indicating that affordable housing should not be sought on sites of 10 units or less, which was subsequently included within the National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). This has hindered delivery of affordable housing in the Borough. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated in July 2018 and now states,

“Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments...”

In respect of residential development, ‘major developments’ are sites of 10 or more new homes or sites over of 0.5 hectares or more. Therefore, this has reduced the number of applications where the Council can seek affordable housing.

Furthermore, developers can put forward viability cases as part of any planning application and this can have the effect of reducing the amount of affordable housing a site delivers.  Accordingly, the Council has not met its policy target of 35% of total housing completions being affordable units.  Increasing supply is therefore a weighty consideration.”

As this application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Mark Richards, on behalf of Mr D Appleton, spoke in objection to the application. Ms Emily Hadden, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee was concerned as to the proposed dwellings’ lack of amenity space and their overbearing effect. Furthermore the Committee felt the proposals were severe overdevelopment of the site which would result in cramped residential units. The bulk and height of the scheme were also causes for concern.

An alternative motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out below was proposed by Councillor Valerie White and seconded by Councillor David Mansfield. The recommendation was put to the vote and carried.

            RESOLVED that

                      I.        Application 18/0605 be refused for the following reasons:

·         Overbearing effect

·         Concerns in regard to the quantum of amenity space

·         Overdevelopment of the site

·         Concerns as to the bulk of the proposal.

                     II.        The reasons for refusal be finalised by the Executive Head of Regulatory after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee and the Case Officer.

           Note 1

It was noted for the record that a Member site visit had taken place on the application.

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons stated above:

Councillors Mrs Vivienne Chapman, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, David Mansfield, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.