Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought outline consent for a residential scheme of up to 322 dwellings with associated areas of public open space; green and drainage infrastructure. The proposal was for 100% market dwellings and the application has been submitted on the basis of all matters except access being reserved. Members considered the presentation from the Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from the following: the Agent; Sports England; the Applicant; Planning Case Officer; the adjacent land owner; and Nottinghamshire County Council Education.

Councillor Mrs L Hurst on behalf of Balderton Parish Council spoke in support on of the application on balance, in accordance with the views of Balderton Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application and it was commented that brownfield sites were normally ideal sites for development, the primary concern regarding this site was the viability of the development and the lack of sufficient developer contributions as a result of the high abnormal costs associated with redeveloping this Brownfield site. Members noted that as a result of the applicant splitting the outline application from the Remediation consent that the benefits of the remediation/de-contamination of the site, flood alleviation works and ecological enhancement had already been secured. Members did not challenge the cost of the remediation works (or their inclusion within the viability assessment) but considered only some weight (rather than full weight) could be given to the benefits of the works secured through the remediation consent. The proposal was considered to represent unsustainable development contrary to the development plan by virtue of the inability to provide appropriate level of infrastructure/contributions in respect of affordable housing, community facilities, health, libraries, open space and transport. The proposal would also be contrary to the NPPF which requires a provision of 10% affordable housing. These compromises, and thus harm, were not considered to be outweighed by the benefit of regenerating brownfield land in this instance.

The provisions of the NPPF were fully considered by Members but the amount of weight being attached to redeveloping brownfield land, when not all community benefits are being provided alongside the remediation having been secured through a previous application, is limited and was thus not considered to overcome the harm identified.

(Councillor M. Brock was not present for the duration of the Officer presentation and took no part in the discussion or vote).

A vote was taken to approve planning permission and unanimously lost.

AGREED      (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation outline planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would represent unsustainable development contrary to the development plan by virtue of the inability to provide appropriate level of infrastructure/contributions in libraries, open space and transport. The proposal would also be contrary to the NPPF which requires a provision of 10% affordable housing.

In accordance with paragraph 12.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.