To determine the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (Minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.
David Rowen presented the application to Members which is for the erection of 8 dwellings and referred Members attention to the update report. The application proposes the extension of Lake Close and this was highlighted to Members on the power point presentation. David Rowen highlighted to Members that the western half of the site already has planning permission for the erection of four dwellings. The proposal is for a range of house type proposed, predominately 2 storey but also with some 1.5 storey and also a couple of bungalows. Mr Rowen drew Members attention to the relationship between the development and the property 4 Gilbert Row which fronts onto West End. No objections have been received from that property in respect of the relationship which is to the side of unit 6. A number of the objections that have been received to this application including the Town Council who have raised the issue of flooding and drainage, however the previous granted planning permission on the western half of the site contained a condition requiring details of surface water drainage to be submitted and if Members are minded to grant planning approval today a similar condition could be added as an acceptable solution can be achieved subject to a detailed surface water strategy being presented. David Rowen stated that if the application is approved then an addition to the planning condition would be required to state the materials to be used and one requiring the details of the management and maintenance to the roads to be submitted and agreed.
Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Adam Sutton, the applicants’ agent. Mr Sutton explained that the Planning Officer has assessed the application and half of the site has approval albeit with a condition concerning surface water drainage. Mr Sutton commented that applications have been made in terms of getting the road adopted. The site forms a natural progression from Lake Close and finishes the development off and this has been discussed with Planning Officers from the outset with the pre application meeting.
Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:
· Councillor Court asked whether there is an issue with flooding at this site. David Rowen stated that the site is within flood zone 1 which is the lowest risk of flooding. Some of the objections that have been received refer to an incident on the site in 2014/15 where there was a particularly intense rainfall event. If there are surface water issues these can be adequately addressed through a detailed engineering scheme and that is why a condition to that effect is recommended.
· Councillor Mrs Laws commented that normally a developer will complete a development and then there is normally a period of grace, however she cannot understand why the developer has now applied for an application for this to be adopted.
· Mr Harding commented that neither the District Council or the County Council can force a developer to have their roads adopted, they can keep them as private if they wish and if a developer has not made arrangements when they sold the plots to individual purchases for those purchases to contribute into a management fund then the developer will find that they will have issues in terms of long term maintenance. This application may therefore have focussed the applicants mind in terms of if they have applied for a Section 38 Adoption Agreement then that will be following a process. The issue that is often found with retrospective applications for road adoptions is that as the road is constructed without the supervision of County Council then core samples have to be taken to ensure it has been constructed in accordance with County Council specifications.
· Councillor Connor stated that it will complete the site.
Proposed by Councillor Connor, seconded by Councillor Hay and decided that the application be:
APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.
(Councillor Sutton declared a non pecuniary interest by virtue of the fact that his Nephew, Adam Sutton was the Agent who would be speaking with regard to this application)