Agenda item

Site Visit: 11.50am – 12pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the demolition of the existing cottage and the residential development of 142 new dwellings and creation of new accesses.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, on the grounds that there were particular site factors.

Members considered the presentation from the Director of Planning Growth, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development. The Committee would benefit from seeing.

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received following publication of the agenda from the following: Local Residents; Nottinghamshire County Council Policy; Newark & Sherwood District Council Conservation; Applicant; Planning Case Officer; and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.

Mr D Kay, local resident, spoke against the application.

Councillor J Buxton representing Balderton Parish Council spoke against the application.

Mr M Stevenson, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor M Shakeshaft, spoke in support of the application.

Having declared an other Registrable Interest, Councillor M Shakeshaft left the meeting after speaking to the Committee at this point.

Councillor J Hall Local Ward Member spoke against the application.

Councillor J Lee adjoining Ward Member was neutral when speaking on the application.

Members considered the application and concern was raised that the site if developed may exacerbate the problem of flooding for the surrounding area as this area currently acts as a flood plain.  There may be a traffic management issue on the proposed narrow roads with parking issues.  Concerns were raised regarding Biodiversity and also bats that were in situ. Bat boxes would be put on the side of houses, however it was reported they were not necessarily affective, and the bats may not stay in that location.  Hedgehogs would also be disturbed.  Another Member commented on the work that the applicant had achieved to date working with Ward Members, campaigners and officers and the report before the Committee was a consequence of that input.  It was felt that hearing all the concerns the applicant perhaps hadn’t gone far enough in terms of protecting wildlife/species.  Balderton already lacked services, by increasing the housing would have a greater impact on the village.  It was commented that the design of the houses on the proposed site was not in keeping with adjoining neighbouring properties. 

The Chair commented that this was an allocated site and thanked officers for their hard work in presenting the proposed final plan, which had been sensitive to many of the concerns raised.  There had been no statutory objections.  140 metres of hedgerow would be removed; however, 300 metres would be replaced.  The 10% affordable housing was an issue when 30% was a local policy requirement and it was felt that the applicant should have gone the extra mile regarding affordable housing and scattering it across the site, not just in one location.  Other Members commented that 10% affordable homes was not good enough and expected an exemplar site.

A Member further commented that this was an allocated site since 2013 and was part of the Newark Urban Area.  The Planning Committee did not set policy and could not amend that.  Strong material reasons would be required to be submitted or if taken to appeal would be granted on appeal.  Housing was needed within the district, with the district shortly being required to find 730 houses as part of the new Governments planning reforms and housing targets.  Nottinghamshire County Council had raised no objection to this application.  A Member commented on the electricity substation that was 800 metres downstream which served the whole of Newark and commented that if that flooded there would be a major power problem.

A Member commented on the £108,000 to be allocated to a demand responsive bus service.  There was a bus service already operational 300 metres from the site.  If a demand responsive service was put in place it would be likely that the bus services currently operational would collapse.  It was suggested that the £108,000 should be used for community benefit should that be the Committee resolution.

The Director of Planning Growth confirmed that the £108,000 allocated to the bus service could be changed and contributed to community benefit.

A Member commented that the proposal was better than it was previously but that the delivery of affordable housing was poor and that there was no pepper potting.

It was moved and seconded that a recorded vote be taken.

AGREED          (with 6 votes For, 4 votes Against and 2 Abstentions) that Planning                         Permission be approved subject to the following:

(i)               conditions contained within the report with an amendment to condition 4 – Require the offsite ecological provision to be identified and secured (via the S106) prior to the commencement of development; and

(ii)             any Section 106 to reallocate £108,000 from bus services, £108,000 to community facilities.

A Member requested that a recorded vote was taken.

The Chair indicated that the meeting duration of three hours had expired therefore a motion was moved by the Chair and seconded by the Vice-Chair to continue the meeting.  A motion was voted on without discussion to continue for a further hour.

Councillor M Shakeshaft returned to the meeting at this point.