Application ref: S18/0937
Description: Reserved matters application for 174 dwellings and associated infrastructure pursuant to SK94/0125/12
Location: Elsea Park - Zone 9, Land east of A151, Raymond Mays Way, Bourne
- Meeting of Development Management Committee, Tuesday, 11th December, 2018 1.00 pm (Item 45a)
- Share this item
Minded to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendations.
13:14 - Councillor Adam Stokes entered the meeting
· Comments from the Environment Agency
· No objection from Cadent Gas Limited
· Comments from the SKDC Affordable Housing Officer
· Comments from the Welland and Deeping Internal Drainage Board including additional comments relating to the ongoing maintenance of the watercourse to the south of Harvey Close
· No comments from Natural England
· Comments from SKDC Street Scene
· Concerns raised by the Elsea Park Community Trust
· An objection and concerns raised by Bourne Town Council
· No objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and SUDS Support
· 9 representations received as a result of public consultation
· Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents
· Site visit observations
· The additional information report giving details of updated landscaping plans
· Comments made by members at the meeting
· The additional information report from the meeting held on 13 November 2018
· Comments made during the public speaking session on 13 November 2018
· Comments made by members on 13 November 2018 when the application was first considered
· Additional information received on surface water drainage following consideration by Committee on 13 November 2018
· Proposed changes to the scheme to address the Committee’s concerns regarding design
13:33 – Councillor Stevens entered the meeting
Several Members who spoke in favour of the proposition to approve the application commented that while the application had not been before the design panel, it was at an advanced stage and had been considered by the Council’s Principal Design Officer and the design changes that had made by the applicant were noted. Other Members did not feel that the design went far enough with some concerns being expressed about how the proposals related to paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the recent emphasis that was increasingly being placed on high quality design.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved subject to conditions for the reasons listed in the case officer’s report. On being put to the vote, this proposition was lost.
A proposition was made that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendations because it was considered not to be of good design, contrary to paragraph 124 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This proposition was seconded. Reference was also made to the density of the proposed development, the site layout and the way the open space and access to it had been integrated within the scheme. Members also referred to the proposal in the context of the wider Elsea Park development.
The Head of Development Management stated that she was not able to accept the reason for refusal as a defensible planning reason. As the proposition to refuse the application was contrary to officer recommendations and the Head of Development Management did not consider the proposed reasons for refusal were sufficient, the cooling off period set out in Article 9.1.9 (c) of the Council’s Constitution was invoked. In accordance with the Constitution, a recorded vote was taken:
For: Councillors Baxter, Dilks, Kaberry-Brown, Stevens, Brian Sumner and Wood
Against: Councillors Exton, King, A Stokes, I Stokes and Trollope-Bellew
Abstain: There were no abstentions
With 6 Members voting for and 5 Members voting against the proposition with no abstentions, the Committee resolved that it was minded to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendations. Those Members who voted in favour of the proposition to refuse the application had five working days to submit their reasons for refusal to the Head of Development Management.