93-home outline development at Land West Of Highland Brow, Galgate

What was proposed

An outline application sought up to 93 homes, access from Highland Brow and 28 affordable homes, with other matters reserved.

“This outline planning application seeks planning permission for the erection of up to 93 dwellings. All matters are reserved except access, which is proposed from Highland Brow towards the southeast corner of the site.”

“Vehicular access to the development will be provided from a simple priority-controlled junction off Highland Brow. The access road measures 5.5m in width and benefits from 6m corner radii and 2m footways on both sides of the road. The proposed 2m footways connect to the existing pedestrian infrastructure on Highland Brow and a 2m footway is proposed along the full site frontage.”

Officer report

The site and its constraints

The site is agricultural land beside Galgate, with a pond, hedgerows, rising ground, flood-risk areas and ecological designations nearby.

“The application site relates to a parcel of agricultural land approximately 5.6 hectare in area, comprising two fields, which are separated by and bound by hedgerows to the north and east boundary. The site extends towards the northern boundary to include a pond. The land rises significantly towards the northeast corner and forms part of the slope of a drumlin feature. This and the adjacent agricultural land appear to have been most recently used for growing maize.”

“A small part of the site along the western edge is located within flood zones 2 and 3. There is also a watercourse in this location, Ou Beck, which is a Main River. This part of the site is also identified as being at risk from surface water flooding. The site is identified as being susceptible to groundwater flooding (50-75%) within the SFRA and just under half of the site is indicated as a mineral safeguarding area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

An earlier proposal for up to 108 homes was refused and dismissed on appeal because the flood-risk sequential test was not satisfied.

“Application 22/01494/OUT was the subject of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of flood risk and the lack of a sequential test. In all other respects the appeal was considered acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate. A copy of the appeal decision is enclosed as a background paper.”

“Outline application for the development of up to 108 dwellings and creation of a new access Refused and dismissed on appeal 22/00342/FUL Erection of 115 dwellings with associated access and landscaping Refused 22/00714/EIR Screening opinion for erection of 115 dwellings with associated access and landscaping Not EIA development…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, concluding that the benefits outweighed the identified landscape harm.

“In the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the assessment of this proposal against the NPPF taken as a whole, concludes that there are no clear, strong reasons for refusing the application which would effectively disengage the tilted balance. Therefore, in applying the tilted balanced, the test is whether any adverse impacts arising from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

“That Outline Planning Permission BE GRANTED following the satisfactory completion of a Legal Agreement within 3 months of the date of this Committee meeting, and subject to the conditions listed below.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Seven participants and a ward councillor spoke against the application, while the applicant’s planning representative spoke in favour.

The committee’s proposal

A councillor proposed approval with an additional condition requiring finished floor levels across the site, alongside the report’s conditions.

“It was proposed by Councillor Catherine Potter and seconded by Councillor Sandra Thornberry:”

“That the application be approved subject to an additional condition on finished floor levels across the site and subject to the conditions in the Committee Report.”

Minutes

The vote

Nine councillors supported the proposal, four opposed it and one abstained, so the chair declared it carried.

“Upon being put to the vote, 9 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with 4 against and one abstention, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.”

Minutes