Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
The Case Officer advised Members that since the publication of the agenda the requested changes to the house design listed on page 17 of the report, to amend some of the windows, remove timber cladding and a hoist bracket, and replace UPVC windows and fascias with timber, had been agreed by the applicant and amended plans received. These plans were also considered to address all outstanding concerns of the Council’s retained Heritage Adviser.
The Committee was addressed by Mrs Barbara Brown, who represented Moore residents objecting to the application. She argued inter alia that the Officer’s report did not address the Greenbelt status of the land and that the Council should support residents with the protection of the Greenbelt. She also stated that the hedges would disappear and therefore have an impact on the historical status of the Village. Mrs Brown spoke about existing traffic hazards on Moore Lane and Moss Lane and the fact that the nursery and pre-school used these for access. She also raised construction impacts and that the development was not limited infilling. She concluded by saying that a large number of people would be affected by this proposal and urged the Committee to reject it.
Mr Craig Foster, a Moore Parish Councillor and resident, then addressed the Committee objecting to the application. He argued inter alia that the plans were contrary to the NPPF with regards to the type of development allowed in Greenbelt areas; that the development was not classed as infilling; and that Moore Village was a conservation area and any development should only be allowed if it made a positive contribution by enhancing the conservation status. He said that the impact on the heritage assets had not been properly addressed. He also highlighted that the access from Moss Lane was dangerous and unsuitable for the scheme and the application did not amount to affordable housing but was a speculative market proposal to make profit. He also raised issues over the use of modern building materials and the impacts on trees. He urged the Committee to refuse the application, as the Parish Council had done so.
Councillor John Bradshaw, HBC Daresbury Ward Councillor, then addressed the Committee also objecting to the proposal. He stated inter alia that the proposal should not be deemed to be ‘infill’ and there was no definition of this in the planning policies, as stated in the report. He stated that there was no demonstration of local need in Policy CS6. He also referred to the current unlawful existing access from Moss Lane and questioned why the highway standards had been relaxed in this case.
In response to the speakers comments Officers were able to clarify the following:
· The relationship between the Development Plan and national policy – specifically that the development plan should apply unless material considerations indicated otherwise and that national policy as such was a material consideration;
· The application had been assessed and considered against all relevant planning policies;
· The Council’s retained Heritage Adviser had raised no objections and that the impact on the heritage assets had been properly assessed;
· The proposed materials were considered to be acceptable and would be subject to a condition;
· The impact of the proposed development of trees and hedgerows was considered to be acceptable;
· The proposed development was considered to constitute limited infill by Officers;
· The duty of the Members of the Development Control Committee was clarified as being to determine applications in accordance with planning policies;
· The profits being made by any developer was not a material consideration;
· The Council’s Highways Officer had raised no objections to the application, following the completion of a traffic speed assessment of the proposed access from Moss Lane. The Highways Officer explained the standards that were used in making an assessment.
After hearing the speakers’
comments and Officers’ updates and responses, the Committee agreed that the
application be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the report.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Standard 3 year permission to commence development (BE1);
2. Condition specifying approved and amended plans (BE1);
3. Requiring submission and agreement of a Construction Management Plan including vehicle access routes and construction car parking; wheel cleansing facilities / strategy; construction and delivery hours (BE1);
4. Condition(s) requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2);
5. Landscaping condition, requiring submission and agreement of hard and soft landscaping (BE2);
6. Condition(s) requiring submission and agreement of drainage details (PR16);
7. Boundary treatments including retaining walls to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2);
8. Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties / commencement of use (BE1);
9. Requiring submission and agreement of site and finished floor (BE1);
10. Condition relating to discovery of previously unidentified contamination (PR14);
11. Condition(s) requiring replacement tree planting (BE1);
12. Condition(s) requiring submission and agreement of drainage details (PR16); and
13. Submission and agreement of Site Waste Management Plan (WM8).