Agenda item

To Determine the application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public Participation Procedure from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards explained that the application has been revised since it was last before the committee in June 2019. He stated that the dwelling type has been revised and there has been an introduction of 2, two bedroomed semi- detached dwellings, which follows previous comments made by Councillor Meekins with regard to the inclusion of diverse housing needs.

Mr Edwards stated that with regard to the dwellings opposite, they form a mixture of dwelling types including houses, bungalows and chalet bungalows and are newly and historically constructed properties. The site is within the village boundary and in his opinion the search area for the sequential exception test is only for Gorefield and if this is the case then in his opinion the test is satisfied.

Mr Edwards referred members to an application in Gorefield which was within all three flood zones which was recommended for approval. He added that the proposal before members today is within flood zone 2 as are the dwellings currently under construction opposite the application site.

If approved, one of the plots will be for the applicant and will allow him to live adjacent to his parents and family business. There will also be 2 self-build plots and a pair of semi-detached properties for local developers.

There have been letters of support received from local residents, businesses and both the preschool and primary school. Both the schools have capacity and are not oversubscribed.

Mr Edwards stated that in the officer’s report the proposed development would not be in an isolated location in the context of paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The occupiers will be able to sustainably access all local services. The report also states that the aims of LP3 in terms of the detached location of the site as set out in LP12, and this policy is superseded by paragraph 78 of the NPPF and the principles of development can be supported.

Mr Edwards added that the proposal comes with the support of the Parish Council, who have highlighted that building on both sides of the road, could act as a deterrent to speeding vehicles in a 30mph zone.  The proposal also fills a gap between the applicants dwelling and the Internal Drainage Board drain.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions;

·         Councillor Meekins asked for clarification with regard to the indicative plan with regard to confirming garages would also be built. Mr Edwards confirmed there would be.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Hay commented that Mr Edwards had stated that the proposal would fill a gap between the house on one side and the drain on the other. She continued that policy LP3 of the Local Plan states that Gorefield is a small village where normally building applications will be limited in scale to residential infilling and the planning portal defines this as a development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings, it does not say anything about between a building and a drain and for that reason in her opinion the proposal goes against this policy as it is not a small gap and does not have building on either side.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the key issues in this application are whether members believe that the proposal is part of the village or in an elsewhere location.  He added that there is full support of the Parish Council. He expressed the view that he thinks that the proposal is part of Gorefield.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the proposal is a ribbon development; it is in a flood risk area and is also unsympathetic due to its scale. He added that under 11.2 of the officer’s report it states there are no material planning reasons that have come to light since June 2019 when the previous application was refused and there must be consistency and for that reason he will be refusing the application again today.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that in his opinion, the proposal is in Gorefield. He feels that the proposal will benefit the local area and supports the local village and helps the village grow and thrive and for that reason he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the material consideration here is that the committee has overturned other applications in other villages in the past on the same basis as the proposal before members today. There will be differences in opinion between officer’s and members at times and on this occasion he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the view that he is pleased to see that more affordable housing has been included in the plans which was a previous concern. The only issue he has now is the increase in height to the surrounding buildings, which is just over a minute.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has looked into the increase in height and there are different dwellings in the street all at differing heights and a metre of height will not make a difference. In his opinion, it forms part of Gorefield and the smaller villages need to grow.

·         David Rowen referred members back to the recent training session, where the starting point, when determining any planning application is by consulting the Local Plan. He provided members with a verbal precis of Policy LP12 and stated that in his opinion the application site being discussed today falls under the part of policy LP12 (c) agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of a settlement and therefore excluded in the definition of the footprint of the village. 

·         David Rowen continued by referring to the officer’s report at 10.1 where it states the Planning Portals definition of infilling “the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings.”  He added with regard to relatively small infilling it could be one and potentially two, however with regard to this application, the small gap in question is 110 metres, but there are no existing buildings on both sides, only on the west side and in his opinion that would mean that the application does not fall into the definition of infilling as set out on the Planning Portal. He added that nothing has changed in his opinion, with regard to this application from when members considered it in June.

·         Councillor Hay added that Gorefield is a small village and as a small village it would normally be limited in scale to residential infilling as the definition on the planning portal states. This proposal is not between existing dwellings, it is on agricultural land. Nothing has changed since the application was discussed and refused in June and the reasons for refusal are still the same, the only difference is there is now an additional reason for refusal.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the issue of small villages is contradicted in the Local Plan, as the villages all have a 10% growth, which was agreed in the Local Plan and in his opinion, he does not feel that the village of Gorefield has reached that additional growth. He added that this is adjacent to the build form and it is an extension to the village and that is what is detailed in the Local Plan.

·         Councillor Benney stated that it states ‘normally’ in LP3, however that is not a fixed definition and as a committee we have the right to debate and make our own decisions.

·         David Rowen commented that the use of the term ‘normally’ would infer there should be some abnormal circumstances to justify going against the policy.

A proposal was made to approve the application by Councillor Hay, which was seconded by Councillor Murphy.  A vote was taken by the committee but the proposal failed.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with officer’s being given delegated power to apply appropriate conditions.