Agenda item

Application S19/2140

Proposal:                      Approval of Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 49 dwellings following grant of Outline Permission S18/0093.

Location:                      Land East of Low Road, Barrowby

Recommendation:     To approve the application subject to conditions

Minutes:

Proposal:    Approval of Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 49 dwellings following grant of Outline Permission S18/0093

 

Location:     Land East of Low Road, Barrowby   

 

Decision:     Minded to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendations

 

The Chairman wished to place on record his and the Committee’s recognition and appreciation for the work undertaken by the Principal Planning Officer, Reddy Nallamilli in respect of communicating and taking on board concerns raised by  residents, the parish council, the neighbourhood plan group, developers and Committee Members in respect of this application.

 

Noting comments made during the public speaking session by:

 

Barrowby Parish Council

Councillor Phil Cupit

Against

Nigel Jones

 

Patricia Scriven

Applicant/Applicant’s Agent

Robert Jays

 

Together with:

  • Comments and an objection from Barrowby Parish Council

·       Comments and an objection from Barrowby Neighbourhood Plan Group

·       No comments to make by SKDC’s Environmental Protection Services

·       Comments from SKDC’s Affordable Housing Officer

·       No observations to make by Anglian Water Services

·       No comments from Witham Third Internal Drainage Board

·       No objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and SUDS Support

·       No comments from Lincolnshire County Council’s Education and Cultural Services

  • Representations received as a result of public consultation
  • Reference to the requirement for a Master Plan that encompassed the proposed design for all three sites together with an insight into connectivity between the sites
  • Significant changes and additions to the proposed site
  • Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework, the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents
  • Site visit observations
  • Comments made by members at the meeting

 

Members debated the application at length and expressed concerns about: the significant changes in this application to the one previously submitted for the outline planning application; the siting of a retail store that had now been included in the plan and would require a separate planning application; the lack of the master plan for all three sites; the distribution of affordable housing, whether this site, which was 100% affordable housing would be the only affordable housing provision across the three sites or whether the other two sites would also contain 35% affordable housing in addition to this site.  Members felt there should be more integration of types of housing across the proposed three sites.

 

Members acknowledged the work that had been undertaken to improve the design of the site since the outline planning permission stage but were concerned that the Master Plan was only just being consulted on and was not at a stage that included the design proposals for the other two sites. Members felt the planning application had been premature in its submission.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused because it was considered contrary to section LVH3 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan, the application was therefore considered premature as it preceded the Masterplan which was required for the site.  Members also considered the application was not in accordance with the original approved outline application.

 

The Council’s Virtual Planning Committee procedure required that any proposal to refuse an application contrary to officer recommendations would invoke the cooling off period set out Article 9.1.9 (c) of the Council’s Constitution.

 

In accordance with the Constitution, a recorded vote was taken:

 

For: Councillors Adams, Bellamy, Dilks, Kaberry-Brown, Milnes, Reid, Selby, Jacky Smith and Judy Smith (9)

Against: No member voted against (0)

Abstain: Councillors Clack, Cottier and Exton (3)

 

The vote was carried and those Committee members who voted in favour of refusal of the application had five working days to provide the Head of Development Management with the planning reasons for their view, together with supporting evidence. The application would be placed on the agenda for consideration at the next available meeting of the Planning Committee, when the Head of Development Management would provide his opinion on whether the reasons advanced were substantial enough for the authority to defend the decision at an inquiry. In light of any additional information, the Committee would then be empowered to determine the application without being fettered by their vote at the previous meeting.

 

A request was also made for the Case Officer to facilitate a meeting between the developers, the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning.

 

Councillor Jacky Smith left the meeting at 13:16

 

13:16 – As the meeting had been in progress for 3 hours, the Chairman asked for Members’ consent to continue. Members agreed

 

The meeting adjourned at 13:16 and reconvened at 13:35.

Supporting documents: