Decision details

2/2018/0532 Residential development for 5 detached dwellings including associated infrastructure and landscaping, Land at Ellerbeck Brow, Brigham, Cockermouth

Decision Maker: Development Panel

Decision status: Refused

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Representations

 

Nick Cockton spoke against the application

 

Cllr Dr Mark Greaves spoke on behalf of Brigham Parish Council

 

Application

 

The report recommended refusal

 

The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues in the report as follows:

 

·  Principle of Development

·  Settlement Limits

·  Design and Layout

·  Highways

·  Residential Amenity

·  Landscape

·  Ecology

·  Overall Tilted Balance

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the item which was a detailed proposal for 5 dwellings.

 

The applicant’s agent submitted a supporting letter, and the Senior Planning Officer explained the contents of the letter to the members.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then delivered his presentation to members.

 

He also advised that the merits of the proposal are complex given the updated planning policy context - history of the site, and the merits of the revised current housing proposal.

 

In terms of the benefits of the scheme officers acknowledged that the proposal is different to the last scheme dismissed at appeal. Its scale is substantially reduced from 34 dwellings to five which includes the overall reduction in the size of the overall site, with one of these dwellings to be offered as affordable, contributing towards community objectives.

 

Officers did not dispute the benefits of the proposal towards the delivery of the council’s housing supply over the plan period, but these have to be balanced against the environmental constraints identified in the former appeal decision, with a range of planning considerations remaining pertinent to the application site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then discussed the most recent appeal and the weight given to inspector’s conclusions. The previous application was refused, contrary to officer’s recommendation on the six grounds specified within the planning history of the report.

 

Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds which were set out in the report.

 

Members asked questions of the speakers and officers and debate ensured in relation to visibility splays, boundary treatments, separation distances and the loss of amenity.

 

Councillor Miskelly moved to refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Councillor Grainger.

 

A vote was taken on the motion to refuse, 10 voted in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

 

The motion was carried.

 

Resolved

 

Refused as per officer recommendation

 

 

Report author: Shona Reid

Publication date: 06/03/2019

Date of decision: 05/03/2019

Decided at meeting: 05/03/2019 - Development Panel

Accompanying Documents: