Construction of 41 dwelling houses and 6 apartments, including site access roads, car parking areas and garages.
Please also see Part II Appendix I.
Construction of 41 dwelling houses and 6 apartments, including site access roads, car parking areas and garages (Russell Armer Ltd)
The Solicitor to the Council addressed Members to advise that there was a further late representation that had been received that morning which Members were given time to read; this was in addition to the late representations that had been received the previous day and had been circulated prior the meeting.
The Solicitor to the Council also advised Members that the Council had not given any legitimate expectation to the public or statutory consultees to re-consult when additional information was provided. The information provided did not, in officers’ views, materially alter the scheme. Members of the public had been notified of the application being considered again at this Committee meeting and had been given sufficient time to make representations and, therefore, no prejudice had occurred to any party. Members were free to decide the application by resolving to approve, reject or defer the application.
Once Members had indicated that they had had sufficient time to consider the late representations received that morning, the Planning Officer presented the application and displayed plans and photographs which detailed the proposals. She explained that the application had been considered at the Planning Committee on 24 November 2016 where Members resolved that delegated authority be issued to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. Following the November Committee meeting, the County Council had commissioned an independent technical review of the drainage scheme. The review concluded that the impact on off-site properties could not be adequately assessed and had recommended the submission of additional information and clarification. The applicant had responded and the County Council had confirmed that the issues raised had now been satisfactorily addressed.
Members’ attention was drawn to the late representations which had been circulated prior to the meeting.
In further presenting the report the Planning Officer reminded the Committee that they had previously resolved to grant the scheme and the main issue for consideration was the additional information supplied in respect of the surface water draining. However, the Planning Officer reiterated the advice of the Solicitor, that the application could be considered afresh.
In addition the Planning Officer highlighted that paragraph 134 of the Report had inadvertently been copied from the report presented at the November meeting of the Planning Committee and was no longer relevant.
Councillor Giles Archibald, Ward Councillor for Kendal Fell addressed the Committee. He highlighted his concerns regarding widening of the road, the percentage of affordable housing and its distribution throughout the development, the contaminated land and drainage. Councillor Archibald left the meeting after making his representations.
Members gave consideration to the drainage scheme, the affordable housing, the contaminated land and the widening of the road.
Note – A viability appraisal was provided at Appendix 1 in Part ll of the Agenda which was excluded from inspection by members of the public in accordance with Section 100 (B) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, and, in all the circumstances of the case, it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it. Copies of the document were excluded, as it contained information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act as follows:-
- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3)
GRANT subject to the conditions set out in the schedule referred to at Minute No.P/119.