Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of NED/20/00221/FL, to allow for changes to the road alignment and plot positions (Major Development), at  land opposite 24 - 44 Clay Lane, Clay Cross

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted to vary Condition 2 (approved plans) of the existing planning permission, granted for a development on the site, at land opposite to 22 to 44 Clay Lane in Clay Cross (NED/20/00221/FL). The variation would change the road alignment and configure the housing plot positions on the development. The Application had been referred to the Committee at the request of Cllr R Shipman, who had raised concerns about it.

Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to the conditions set out in the report. It was also recommended that the existing Section 106 Agreement – or the agreement, reached between the Council as Planning Authority and the developer in order to help offset the impact on local people – be carried forward.

The report to Committee explained why Members were asked to agree the recommendations. Officers emphasised that the Application would only involve minor changes to an approved development. Committee was reminded that under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 changes could be made to an existing planning permission, as long as these would not make the development fundamentally different to the one which had been approved. Officers confirmed that the proposed minor changes would not significantly alter the approved development. This remained acceptable in principle and was in accordance with the overall objectives of the Local Plan.

Before Members discussed the application, those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee. Cllr R Shipman, M Allen and R Eden objected to the Application. The Agent, S Betts, spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues. These included the Principle of Development and the existing permission to develop the site. Committee considered the design and layout implications of the proposed minor changes. It also took into account the implications for heritage assets, ecology and the trees covered by the Tree Preservation Order on the site.

Members discussed the Application. They were reminded that the Application related solely to the proposed minor amendments. It did not relate to the original decision to grant planning permission for the overall development on the site.

Members discussed the concerns which had been raised about flood risks and the implications for the current Application. In particular, Members noted the concerns which had now been raised about possible flood risks on the site by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Committee discussed these risks. It was informed that the Developer had agreed to install a tank to take water from the neighbouring brook in order to help mitigate them.

Members were informed that the LLFA had considered the Application and confirmed that the proposed minor changes would not increase the level of risk above those which existed under the existing approved application- either on the management of surface water or the flood risk on or off the site.

Committee discussed the information on flood risks which had been presented to it when the original application had been approved and the additional information that had emerged since then. Some Members expressed regret that this additional information had not been available when the Committee had considered the original application. Some Members also felt that the different information had created uncertainty and needed to be clarified, so that the Committee could be sure the proposals for minor changes would not increase these risks.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor D Ruff and Councillor A Powell moved and seconded a motion to approve the Application, subject to the conditions set out in the report, in line with officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was defeated.

Councillor D Hancock and Councillor W Armitage then moved and seconded a motion to defer consideration of the Application, so that information about the flood risks and the impact of the proposed minor amendments would have on them could be provided to the Committee.

The motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

RESOLVED -

(1)  That Application NED/21/00627/FL is deferred, so that an appropriate clarification of the information about flood risks on the site can be reported to the Committee, when considering and determining the Application and proposed minor changes to the existing planning permission for the site.