To receive an implications report by the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at a previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a report * of the previous Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. At a meeting held on 4 March 2015 the Planning Committee had considered the above application and had resolved that they were minded to refuse the application, subject to the consideration of an implications report. The Committee had considered:
· The proposed density of development, whether the development was in character with existing dwellings in Pomeroy Road
· Whether the proposal development was in contravention to the Masterplan approved for the Eastern Urban Extension;
· If the development proposed would set a precedent of building in gardens of adjacent properties;
· Whether the site could support 2 dwellings;
· The need for the development to be in line with Development Plan Policies COR2, DM2, DM14 and not the Eastern Urban Extension.
The Committee had initially considered that the proposal was out of character with the existing layout of the area, it would result in a development of uncharacteristically higher density out of character and appearance with the surrounding area, it would lead to a loss of local distinctiveness and provide a dwelling in close proximity to other dwellings contrary to the general character of the area.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration made reference to some confusion surrounding this application which had related to some recent work undertaken by the Council’s IT department. This had unfortunately generated emails relating to the decision on certain historic cases including that on the withdrawal of the previous application for a dwelling on this site. She had been in communication with some of the objectors regarding this and had provided an explanation.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposal is considered a departure from existing dwelling layout in the area, to have an unacceptable size of plot at an uncharacteristically high density contrary to the character and appearance of the surrounding area resulting in a loss of local distinctiveness and close proximity to other dwellings. The proposal is considered contrary to policies COR2 Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1), DM2 and DM14 Development Management Policies (Local Plan Part 3).
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr K D Wilson)
Notes:
i. Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, D J Knowles and R L Stanley made declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding this application.
ii. The following late information was reported:
22nd April 2015
Two further objections (one inadvertently omitted from the previous report and one recent) summarised as follows:
1. Letter from CPRE stating that “The principle of a further dwelling house within the small garden space is considered to be unacceptable as it would represent an over development of the site to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.” They then list the policies to which they consider the application to be contrary COR2, DM2, DM15. They also list Structure Plan, old Local Plan policies and PPS3 which are no longer relevant.
2. Letter from previous objector in relation to the implications report summarised as follows:
· 5 objections were recorded in the original officer’s report, rather than the 6 shown on the Council’s website, including one from CRPE, which questions the validity of the officer’s report
· The implications report on the agenda for the 1 April meeting was, in our view, biased in favour of the applicant. The revised report is fairer but we still have some concern. The sections headed “Financial implications” and “Risk assessment” do not include the consequences of the Council approving the application, i.e. the Council acting unreasonably or without regard to due process to the disadvantage of objectors who may also have a remedy.
· The revised implications report uses an inappropriate argument relating to densities and plot sizes. We question whether the average person would see Post Hill and Fairway as lying in the immediate vicinity of a site on Pomeroy Road. The appropriate area for that comparison should be Uplowman Road and the two roads leading off (Pomeroy Road and Pool Anthony Drive).
(iii) *Report previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
Supporting documents: