Agenda item

Councillor Keith Ellis did not take part in the debate or vote, as per his earlier declaration.

Application: 2017/0736/REMM

Location: Land South of Main Street, Church Fenton, Tadcaster

Proposal: Reserved matters application relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for erection of 50 dwellings of approval 2015/0615/OUT for outline application to include access for a residential development

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee as more than 10 letters of representation have been received which raise material planning considerations and officers would otherwise determine the application contrary to these recommendations. It had also been requested by Cllr Musgrave.

This application had been brought back before Planning Committee due to deferral of the application at the 15th January 2020 Planning Committee. Members resolved to defer the application due to intermittent availability of Public Access, whereby objectors were unable to access relevant documents was given due consideration and further representations were received.

The Committee noted that the application was a reserved matters application relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for erection of 50 dwellings of approval 2015/0615/OUT for outline application to include access for a residential development.

In relation to the officer update note, members noted that several further letters of objection had been sent directly to the Chair, however the majority of issues had been raised previously and had been addressed in the report.  In relation to the 50 dwellings, the indicative plan on the outline application showed 50 dwellings and therefore it was considered reasonable for this quantity to be approved on the reserved matters application.  Members acknowledged that a number of amendments had been highlighted in the officer update note relating to the proximately of plots 9 and 10 to the existing hedgerow, a consultation response had been received from North Yorkshire Highways; and details of an additional condition related to flood risk.  Officers highlighted that affordable housing was not being considered as a reserved matter, only the position and design in relation to the layout were matters for consideration

Members asked questions relating to whether the village design statement had been taken into account and whether the proposed access road would be to adoptable standards, officers responded and confirmed both matters had been taken into account in determining the application.

Joseph Miller, objector, spoke in objection to the application.

Sarah Chester, Parish Councillor, spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Lane, agent, spoke in support of the application. 

Members outlined their potential reasons for refusal:

·         The application failed to meet the high standard of design quality demanded by Core Strategy Policy SP19

·         The detrimental Impact on the Listed Buildings and their settings failed to have the “Special regard “ required by Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

·         The application failed to reflect the historic character of the village or enhance community cohesion, or have any regard to the local character and context of its historic surroundings

·         The established historic links between the Grade II Listed Vicarage and the Grade I Listed Church of St Mary’s would be merged and diminished

·         Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 intended that “ the desirability of preserving the significance of Listed Buildings should not be simply given.  Careful consideration by the decision maker for the purpose of deciding whether there would be harm but should be given considerable importance and weight when the decision maker carried out the balancing exercise”

·         The statutory duty within section 66 (1) required the LPA to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their settings or any features of a special architectural or historic interest. This had not been achieved to the level expected on this scheme

·         Given the importance of the Heritage Assets and their unique setting, the appearance, layout and scale of the development should be exemplar and meet all the requirements of Paras 189 and 198 of the NPPF.

·         Flood Risk - The responsible statutory body (the environment agency) had raised the site from Flood Zone 1 to Flood Zone 2.  An up to date Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Sequential Test (ST) was required prior to determination.  To date an updated FRA had not been carried out which in the circumstances was perverse and open to legal challenge.

It was proposed and seconded that Members were minded to REFUSE the application.  Officers were requested to consider the indicative reasons for refusal and bring them back to Committee for Members consideration. 

RESOLVED:

Minded to REFUSE the application and defer for reasons for refusal to be considered by the Committee.