Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director, Community Development Services, attached.

Considered:

The Committee considered a report of The Corporate Director – Community Development Services relating to planning application ZA23/24941/FUL.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:

•           A Member asked a question of Officers’ about whether the viability report had been considered by the District Valuer. Officers confirmed that it had been considered.

•           Members asked questions on the parcels of land at the site and the local plan, and previous planning consent approval. The case Officer confirmed details of two previous consents granted in 2015 and 2017 and informed Members that two out of three parcels of land were designated for development in the local plan.

•           A Member commented on the mix and type of dwellings proposed at the site and added that Cononley had a figure of 115 dwellings in the settlement growth report, which had already been exceeded with a total of 136.       

The Chair reminded all present at the meeting of the Council’s public speaking scheme which operated at Planning Committees and the constitutional deadlines for registering to speak. On this occasion, the Chair exercised his discretion, under exceptional circumstances and stressing this did not set future precedence, to allow the clerk of Cononley Parish Council and the local resident, Julie Cawood to speak on this occasion as there had been issues with the sending of the notification letters to them of this meeting and the planning application.    

The applicant’s agent, Mr Jamie Pyper spoke in support of the application.

The Clerk to Cononley Parish Council, Kath Clark, spoke against the recommendation.

A local resident, Julie Cawood, spoke against the application.  

Following the representations received from all the public speakers, the Committee further discussed the application and made further comments:

•           The Planning Committee was of the view that it was legitimate to undertake a fresh consideration of the overall planning gains and losses because: there were no live permissions on the site; only parts of the site were originally allocated in the local plan; and new evidence had been provided by the developer which undermined the reasons for the allocation of part of the site under the local plan.

•           A view was expressed that the overall assessment of the balance of planning gain against loss was negative.

•           Observations regarding affordable housing and noting that the Applicant’s proposed commercial development for this site which did not provide for any affordable housing.    

•           That the mix of housing development significantly differed from the assessed overall need in that the site provided only 16% one and two bedroom properties against a need identified in paragraph 4.30 of the Craven District Plan of 39.4%.

•           Comments that there was no shortfall of housing in the locality or the Craven area as a whole.

•           Comments regarding the MBUA and an opinion that only part of the site was in the MBUA, adding that Settlement monitoring figures indicated that growth in this tier 4a village was not limited and significantly exceeded the local plan policy of directing limited growth to tier 4 villages.

•           Concerns, as also outlined by the Parish Council and Public Speaker against the application, that there were amenity issues relating to loss of on street parking, lights shining into front windows and loss of light and proximity of overlook to Overton on Moorfoot Lane.

Members requested Officers’ to review the appropriate wording of the reasons for refusal and report back their advice at the start of the next meeting.

Reasons for refusal

Members voted that they were minded to refuse the application on the following grounds

•           The overall assessment of the balance of planning gain and loss was negative

•           The site cannot be commercially developed and provide a single affordable house

•           The mix of housing development significantly differs from the assessed overall need in that the site provides only 16% one and two bedroom properties against a need identified in paragraph 4.30 of the Craven District Plan of 39.4%

•           There was no shortfall of housing in the locality or the Craven area as a whole.

•           Settlement monitoring figures indicate that growth in this tier 4a village was not limited and significantly exceeds the local plan policy of directing limited growth to tier 4 villages.

•           There are amenity issues relating to loss of on street parking, lights shining into front windows and loss of light and proximity of overlook to Overton on Moorfoot Lane

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused.  An amendment was then put forward, which was seconded, that the application be deferred until the next meeting with the Committee minded to refuse the application and that Officers’ are to review the appropriate wording of the reasons for refusal and report back their advice at the start of the next meeting.

The amendment was then put to the vote and carried by three votes to two (one abstention).

The amendment to defer then became the substantive motion of the Committee and was put to the vote. It was carried unanimously. 

The decision:

That the Committee is MINDED TO REFUSE the application and the matter is   DEFERRED until the next meeting for the following reason: for Officers’ to review the appropriate wording of the reasons for refusal and report back their advice at the start of the next meeting.

Voting Record

For Deferral, with the Committee minded to refuse the application for the reasons indicated above – 6 (Unanimous)