Agenda item

Recommended for Refusal.

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/16/1716/FUL, planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report now submitted.  Members were advised of the planning history of the site since 1999 when the application was first submitted. 

The Head stated that Members needed to be mindful of the emerging District Plan as this site had been allocated for residential development.  He explained that the leisure development had previously been approved as it had been considered that the benefits of the proposal had clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

However, in view of the recent publication of the pre-submission District Plan, Officers were now unable to support the application for a leisure use as doing so would be contrary to the policies of the emerging Plan given that the site had been earmarked for residential development.  Councillor J Kaye sought clarification of the status of this site as Green Belt when it had been earmarked for residential development in the District Plan.

Councillor K Warnell referred to the fact that the emerging District Plan was not policy and this application was supported by current planning policies as well as the Council’s Forever Active and Living Well schemes.  He was concerned that the need for housing trumped the need all other types of provision such as the leisure uses being promoted by this Authority.

Following these and a number of other comments from Councillors J Goodeve, R Brunton, R Standley and the Chairman, the Head stated that if the District Plan was approved in its current form then the status of this site as Green Belt would change and future decisions would be made under a different policy context.

Members were advised that the weight that could be given to the District Plan depended on 3 distinct criteria, one of which was the compliance of the plan with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Officers considered that the emerging plan would be fully compliant with the NPPF.

The Head stated that one uncertainty was how many unresolved objections there would be once consultation concluded in December 2016.  He clarified why Officers were now giving some weight to the District Plan when making recommendations to Development Management Committee.

Members were advised that the Leisure Services Manager felt that the District was well catered for in terms of swimming pools and the provision of tennis courts.  In addition, there was the potential that this proposal, because of its type, might divert demand from elsewhere but not have a significant impact in relation to demand locally.   Therefore,  Officers had not given the health benefits significant weight.  Members were further advised that this scheme might allow residents who already accessed facilities to do so more locally.

The Head concluded that the matter that had finally shaped Officer thinking was the view that there were clear emerging polices in the District Plan and this application did not sit well with those policies.  Members were reminded that the scheme had been approved a number of times and had not been implemented.  The Authority was not in a position to direct applicants or landowners on which applications to deliver.

Members made a number of other comments regarding the shortage of mixed use leisure facilities and the reasons why Officers were not supportive of the application when they had been previously.  The Head stated that the application had to be considered within the current policy context and this was now different, to that which had applied when the application had been considered previously, in light of the emerging pre submission draft District Plan.   

Members were reminded that tough decisions had been made regarding the allocation of sites for housing and this site was one that was proposed to be taken out of the Green Belt.  In relation to allocated housing sites, the Council was now keen to ensure that these remained deliverable.  Officers were confident that the recommendation was sound and were satisfied that the Authority would not be found to have acted unreasonably should there be an appeal.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, there being an equality of votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote against the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor T Page proposed and Councillor K Warnell seconded, a motion that application 3/16/1716/FUL be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to comprise a variation of the agreement signed in relation to previous permissions at the site with appropriate conditions, the detail of which be delegated to Officers.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/16/1716/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to comprise a variation of the agreement signed in relation to previous permissions at the site with appropriate conditions, the detail of which be delegated to Officers.