Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director - Planning – Community Development Services

Considered:-

The Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services sought determination of an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 9 dwellings at Plantation House, Cawood Road, Wistow on behalf of Newett Roberts Limited

The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to the officer update note and highlighted that at the time the Committee report had been written formal comments had been awaited from the Council’s Contamination Consultant.  These had since been received and it had been agreed that a Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation was needed due to the past history of the site, and the appropriate remedial action would be required to make the site safe and suitable for its proposed use.

Members heard that recommended conditions at numbers 23 to 26 of the report had been amended slightly as per the officer update note.  And finally, there was an error at paragraph 10.27 of the Committee report; Plot 1 should be read as Plot 2.

Andrew Mason spoke objecting to the application.

The applicant, Hugh Roberts, spoke in support of the application.

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

• Whether there was a requirement for a balance on the types of houses to be built on the site.
• If the whole of the proposed site was on the Council’s brownfield register.
• Members queried why one part of the plan shown, outside the development limits, appeared to contain trees and greenery.  Officers explained this small part outside the development limits was to be utilised for an area of landscaping for the development. The second part outside the limits contained a dwelling but facilitated a better layout, allowing a gap with views towards the Grade II Listed Blackmiths building south.
• Whether it was felt that the limited number of houses in the application, to be built on the site was to avoid the need to provide affordable housing.
• Members stated that they were not satisfied that the proposal would impact on the daylight and sunlight of an existing property and questioned why the officer’s recommendation had been to grant the application.

The decision:-

That the planning application be DEFERRED for the following reason:

• To allow new plans and a revised layout to be submitted that would resolve the issue of overshadowing of the existing property to the north of Plot 2 known as ‘The Cottage’.

Voting record:-

The officer recommendation that ‘planning permission be delegated to the Head of Planning Development Management to GRANT subject to a Section 106 or a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution to secure offsite Bio-Diversity Net gain to offset the onsite loss, off-site recreation provision and to secure waste and recycling conditions and subject to the conditions listed in Section 12 of the Committee report’ did not receive a proposer therefore the motion fell.

It was subsequently moved and seconded that the application be deferred to allow new plans and a revised layout to be submitted that would resolve the issue of overshadowing of the existing property to the north of Plot 2 known as ‘The Cottage’.  A vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously. The motion to defer the application was therefore carried.