Agenda item

Application: 2021/1295/REM

Location: Yew Tree House, Main Street, Kelfield

Proposal: Reserved matters application (following the 2017/0701/OUT) including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before Planning Committee because 11 letters of representation had been received, which raised material planning considerations in objection to the scheme and officers would otherwise determine the application contrary to these representations.

Members noted that the application was a reserved matters application (following the 2017/0701/OUT) including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 6 No dwellings.

An Officer Update Note had been circulated and published online ahead of the meeting which gave details of a consultation responses from Kelfield Parish Council and the Conservation Officer, responses to concerns by the agent, further letters of support, an added letter of objection and two additional conditions.

The Committee asked Officers about the elevations and the views of the Conservation Officer. Officers explained that further discussions were undertaken with the Conservation Officer who had sought assurance that some parts involved in the scheme could be protected, despite the fact that Yew Tree House was a non-designated heritage asset, was not listed or in a conservation area and could therefore be demolished. The Conservation Officer had also been of the view that the layout of the dwelling should be more traditional. Officers reminded the Committee that the application before them was for reserved matters, and that the site already had outline permission.

Jennifer Hubbard, agent, was invited to speak at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further and acknowledged that Officers were unsure if a suggested layout plan of the dwellings was shown during the outline stage of the application.

Some Members expressed unease that the views of the Conservation Officer were not being given appropriate weight, as they had expressed a number of concerns. The scheme before the Committee was different from the original indicative layout, and whilst the application should not be refused, Officers should speak to the Conservation Officer further in order for more information to be garnered before the Committee took a decision.

Officers acknowledged that the Conservation Officer’s response had only been received in the week prior to the meeting, but that the agent for the application had wanted the scheme determined. Officers also explained that they didn’t feel the Conservation Officer’s response was critical, as the site was not in a conservation area, nor a listed building; there was also a resourcing issue within the Conservation Team.

Some Members felt that as the scheme before them was a reserved matters application, design was a subjective thing; Members were being asked to consider what was before them. If Officers had duly reflected on the Conservation Officer’s comments, the Committee should determine the application.

Other Members were of the opinion that the Committee should not feel pressured into determining the scheme, and as such, that the application should be deferred, and the agent asked to again consider the Conservation Officer’s concerns. There were members of the Committee who felt that the arrangement of the dwellings was too cramped and constituted overdevelopment on the site, that the proposed access arrangements were unsatisfactory and may contribute to overlooking and that parking may become an issue for residents in the future. It was strongly suggested that the views of the Committee should be fed back to the agent.

There was no proposal forthcoming from Members to grant the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be DEFERRED in order for amendments to the scheme to come forward. A vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED in order for a number of amendments to come forward, for the following reasons:

·                 a design that better reflects the Conservation Officer’s              comments;

·                 for the issue of over development to be addressed;

·                 for minimum privacy distances to be considered;

·                 a suggested reduction in the number of accesses; and

·                 the need for differing and smaller house types.

At this point in the proceedings Members proposed and seconded that the meeting of the Committee should continue beyond the three-hour time limit.

RESOLVED:

                        To continue the meeting beyond three hours.

The meeting was then adjourned at 4.40pm by the Chair for ten minutes to facilitate a comfort break. The meeting reconvened at 4.50pm.