Craven

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways will present a report (Document “L”) in respect of a planning application for the demolition of two existing properties and the erection of ten replacement dwellings at Darkwood House, The Street, Addingham – 17/00570/MAF.

Recommended –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

                                                                        (John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways presented a report (Document “L”) in respect of a planning application for the demolition of two existing properties and the erection of ten replacement dwellings at Darkwood House, The Street, Addingham – 17/00570/MAF.

The Assistant Director reported on the substance of an additional representation submitted on behalf of the Addingham Planning Scrutiny Group which stated that whilst there was no objection in principle to the proposal it was considered important to ensure that the drainage system would not have any detrimental impact and that bats were not adversely affected by the development. He explained that relevant conditions were proposed within his technical report.

A Ward Councillor asked if the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) applied to this development and how this would impact in terms of the request for approximately £14,000 towards recreational provision in the area.

The Assistant Director confirmed that CIL would apply and this levy was intended to address the impact of development on educational and recreation infrastructure, amongst other things.  At this stage a precise figure for the amount of the CIL liability had not been calculated but it was anticipated that it would be in the region of £100,000 in this case.

He further explained that this money would go into a central pot to address infrastructure needs across the district with the exception of 15% which could go to a Parish or Town Council if there was one in the area concerned.  The quoted £14,000 was therefore an indicative figure. It had been agreed that consultees would continue to calculate their requirements so that there was a record for consideration when the CIL money was allocated.

An objector raised concerns about the CIL in terms of public scrutiny of how the money would be spent, the 5% administrative charge and the amount that small scale developers would be liable to pay, as it was considered that this could favour larger developers.  He expressed the view that the money should be spent locally and that members of the public have clarity about how much money was being generated by a development.

The Assistant Director explained that the CIL was a national scheme and that the Council could not change the rules that applied.  The administrative charge was necessary to cover the costs of managing the scheme and the Council had a designated officer to undertake this role. Although Section 106 contributions had only been required for developments of 10 or more units CIL applied to any development of 1 unit upwards.  The Council had been required to demonstrate to a Government appointed Inspector that the level of CIL that it would require to be paid was both deliverable and affordable and robust viability testing had been undertaken on a variety of different sites.  This had meant that in some areas of the district the CIL requirement was nil. The calculation was based on the amount of floorspace that would be created by a development but this had to take account of any existing floorspace which meant that the calculation of the final figure could sometimes be complex.

The Assistant Director responded to questions from Members:

·         In theory a greater number of houses could be developed on this site as the density was relatively low and the proposed houses were quite large.

·         The trees to the southern boundary would be removed; they were not protected and were not significant specimens.  A relevant condition would require the submission of details, and implementation, of a landscaping scheme to provide appropriate replacement planting.

The applicant’s agent stated that his client was fully aware of his obligations in respect of CIL.  He commended the Assistant Director’s comprehensive report.

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways