The Chair introduced the item to the committee and invited the Development Management Team Leader to present the report of the Principal Planning Officer (AR). 

The Development Management Team Leader summarised the report for the committee. 

The Chair then invited Mr. Martin Pearce, of Weston Homes, to address the committee.  Mr. Pearce gave a summary of the history of the site and the application.  He emphasised that the application had been shaped and amended in close cooperation with the council and that this application reflected that coordinated approach.  He also made reference to the fact that all blocks within the development were protected by a sprinkler system, to give a high level of fire safety.

Councillor Bell commented that he had voted against the original proposal.  He noted the increase in the number of units, but pointed out that the percentage of affordable units was still only 10.5%.  He expressed his disappointment that, after two years, the affordable housing element of the application, was still so low. 

At this point, the Chair involuntarily left the meeting due to connectivity issues.  After a short delay to try and re-establish connection, the Vice Chair, Councillor Stephen Johnson stepped in to chair the meeting. 

There followed a discussion around the percentage of affordable and social housing.  Councillors Bell and Smith expressed their disappointment in such a low percentage of such housing. Councillor Sharpe highlighted that there could be an exception to the 35% affordable housing standard on the grounds of viability. This exception meant that the level of affordable housing in the development was not grounds for refusal.  This was conceded by the committee but it was felt that it was quite correct to criticise a developer in these circumstances. 

The Principal Planning Officer (AR) pointed out that the proposed provision was actually a higher cost to the developer as the tenure of affordable housing offered would comprise of only affordable and social rented units, without shared ownership, and on balance this was a good offer. The discussion then moved on to the addition of two storeys to the central blocks and the 25 degreesightlines.  Councillor Smith suggested that perhaps the height should have been added to the lower blocks towards the edges of the development.

The Principal Planning Officer (AR) explained that the higher blocks were the ones farthest away from the neighbours.  She added that the 25 degreesightlines merely triggered the need for a sunlight and daylight assessment.  These assessments had been carried out, with the result that the neighbours’ amenity would not be unreasonably harmed.  The Vice Chair then proposed a vote to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Stephen Johnson requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Collett, Johnson, Pattinson, Sharpe and Watkin.

Those members voting against the motion:

Councillors Bell and Smith.

Those members abstaining from voting:

Councillor Mills.

Those members absent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12