RM

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

On 15 March 2018 planning permission for the construction of 16 houses together with associated parking, access and wildlife area had been granted subject to delegated completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of affordable units, junction improvements and reptile relocation.  At that time, the District Valuation Service had concluded that the development was able to bear an element of on-site affordable housing but a not a full policy compliant amount. The provision at the time was six shared-ownership units. 

Since the application was resolved to be approved, the Applicant reconsidered the development viability position and was now adamant that, due to increased costs, provision of affordable housing made the site unviable.  Members were advised that an independent valuer, Altair, in consultation with the Council’s Housing and Asset Development Officer had reviewed the cost elements of the scheme and reached the same conclusion, that the development was not able to deliver affordable housing. The application was therefore brought before Members to reconsider the proposals without the provision of any affordable housing.

In addition to the development viability issue, Members were advised that, as a result of the adoption of the Council’s Development and Site Allocations Plan, there had been a material change in circumstances since the application was last approved. These changes included several policies relating to housing standards, including Policy DHG7 which related to minimum garden length.  Members were advised that five of the houses proposed (plots 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11) did not meet the minimum length of 10m (only approximately 7m on average).

The Planning Committee considered the comments submitted by Fairlight Parish Council who had objected at the earlier hearing on grounds of overdevelopment, but who did not repeat their objections. Their disappointment that the affordable element was no longer viable was discussed in detail.  Members heard from the local Ward Member, who outlined the history of the site, from Planning Officers and from the Housing and Asset Development Officer.

Members asked a series of questions in relation to several other issues. These included: highway issues, including accessing the site (narrow unadopted roads), parking and increased traffic volume; the impact of the housing proposal on the character and appearance of the local area which was contrary to Policy OSS4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy; insufficient garden space of some of the units; the high density of the scheme; the lack of children’s recreational facilities / space; and that the scheme had not addressed or included carbon neutrality issues e.g. limited opportunities for walking (due to lack of pavements), no electric charging points etc.

Members clarified with Planning Officers that although brought back to Planning Committee mainly due to the development viability issues that, due to the time that elapsed since the previous resolution and the material change to local and national policy situation, the application should be reconsidered having regard to all material matters.  In this regard, in weighing up all the issues, including the lack of affordable housing provision, the lack of a current 5-year supply of available housing land, the lack of decent garden space for some of the proposed houses, as well as a lack of children’s recreational facilities, Members considered that the harm the application would cause because of its deficiencies in garden space provision, harm to the character of the area through its high density and overdevelopment and lack of any carbon reduction elements would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.  Therefore, the Planning Committee considered that the application should be refused.

Councillor Mier moved the motion to refuse (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Harmer.  Resolution voted on – the motion was declared CARRIED (11 for / 3 against).

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.     The proposed development fails to achieve an adequate standard of accommodation because plots 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 (as shown on Drawing No. 662/002P5, dated July 2015) fail to achieve minimum garden lengths of at least 10m – the average between them being approximately 7m. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy DHG7 (i) of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

2.     The proposed development fails to achieve the expected minimum private garden space for 5 of the 16 units proposed and offers no public outdoor recreational opportunities, specifically for children and young people. The shortfall in garden space for some of the proposed dwelling houses and the lack of recreation space is evidence of the overdevelopment with a density and at odds with prevailing local character. As a result, the proposal is considered to harm the character of the area contrary to Policy OSS4 (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

3.     The proposed development is in an area of unadopted roads, some without pavements, which would discourage more sustainable walking and non-car modes of transport, provides for no electric car-charging points and fails to take the opportunity to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy SRM1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

NOTE:

1.     This refusal relates to the following plans and drawings:

Drawing Nos. 662/303 P2 dated 26 April 2017

Drawing Nos. 021 P2, 022 P2, 023 P2, 024 P2, 025 P2, 026 P2, 027 P2 and 030 P dated 6 July 2017

Drawing Nos. 007 P3, 008 P3, 028 P3 and 031 P2 dated 8 August 2017

Drawing Nos. 304 P4, 002 P5, 003 P5, 004 P5 006 P4 dated 27 November 2017

Drainage Strategy and Sustainable Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan (Issue B) Monson dated 11 July 2017

8330P/301 Rev B Surface Water Drainage Layout and 8330P/302 Rev B Foul Water Drainage Layout dated 11 July 2017

7556 100 P2 Proposed Carriageway and Access Alignment dated 1 November 2007

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by reconsidering the Applicant’s concerns regarding the provision of affordable housing and development viability. Furthermore, due to the material change in circumstances since the application was first considered, the Planning Committee, by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly identifying these within the reasons for the refusal, has offered the opportunity for the Applicant to consider these with a view to entering into pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

(Councillor Mier declared a personal interest in this matter in so far as he lived near and had been involved in the site prior to becoming a Councillor in May 2019 and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).