Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Thrower presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Lydia Pravin, the Agent.

Ms Pravin stated that there she has noted that there are no comments from residents or interested parties and Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Authority accept the principle of a 4-dwelling development in this location. She explained that the site adjoins the built-up part of the settlement of Leverington on the west side of Ringers Lane with housing to the north, south and east and added that it is important to note the housing to the north which forms part of the continuous developed footprint of the settlement stretches along Gorefield Road and due to the development of the houses along Popes Lane which forms a cul-de-sac arrangement this juts out to the north-west with some housing facing directly towards the open countryside.

Ms Pravin stated that the rest of the housing within Popes Lane has rear gardens facing out to the open countryside with hedgerow on the rear boundaries with the dwellings then continuing down along Gorefield Road and to the south of the site the dwelling of East View has hedgerow and fencing on the boundary and there are also dwellings directly opposite the site on the eastern side of Ringers Lane and the dwellings of Knights Close extend further south-east. She explained that the village comprises of a linear pattern of development punctured by infill development in a cul-de-sac style arrangement; the site is well located adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village and will continue the linear pattern.

Ms Pravin stated that the houses in this location will be in keeping with the core shape and form of the settlement and form an infill development. She explained that the hedgerow could be planted within the site on the western boundary and enable the development to make a positive contribution to the character of the area which consists of housing with hedgerow boundaries.

Ms Pravin stated that Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 confirms a presumption in favour of sustainable development and she added that the proposal will ensure a development that meets the three interdependent dimensions to sustainable development with an economic role, a social role, and an environmental role.  In terms of the economic role the construction of the proposed development will generate employment and post completion the spending of the additional households will increase the spending power of the local economy which will also help support the services and facilities within the village, such as the village pubs.

Ms Pravin explained that in terms of the social role, the proposal will strengthen the village community and help assist the housing needs of the district through providing a windfall development which is invaluable in terms of providing diversity and flexibility to the supply of new properties across the district. She explained that in relation to the environmental role, the proposal will secure well related housing which is appropriate to the pattern and character of the village with hedgerow added on the western boundary within the site and enables the development to make a positive contribution to the character of the area which gives rise to an appropriate location and land use.

Ms Pravin expressed the view that the site is inherently sustainable and coupled with the numerous benefits of the development requested that members grant permission in principle for development of the site.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked whether a Permission in Principle (PIP) application is like an Outline Planning Permission? Nick Thrower stated that a PIP application establishes the principle of the proposed use and then a subsequent application would need to be submitted, entitled a technical detail consent which deals with layout and design of the proposed dwelling. Councillor Murphy questioned how the committee can decide without knowing any detail? David Rowen added that a PIP is a legitimate application route introduced by the Government in the last three years. He stated that no detail with application is submitted, which is similar to an old style outline application where all that is seen is a red line around a piece of land, and it is for members to decide whether they are happy or unhappy to see a piece of land developed in broad principle terms. He added that the officer’s opinion is that they do not feel it is appropriate site for housing to go on from a character point of view.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that if the application comes back to the committee with the further design and detail and the committee do not agree with the proposal what would happen in that scenario as outline permission has already been granted. David Rowen stated that essentially the committee are granting the principle, but if the committee are not happy with the technical detail, appearance, or layout then the application can be refused on those grounds.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that is he correct in his understanding that under an Outline Permission you can commit aspects, such as access, but under a Permission in Principle (PIP) you cannot. David Rowen confirmed that is correct, certain details can be committed on an Outline Permission and the level of detail submitted in the proposal before members is the only information required to be submitted and it is only being looked at in very broad land use terms.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that in the officer’s conclusion and statement for reasons for refusal, it states that the proposal would mean that there was a loss of significant views across the open countryside. She asked officers to confirm when did the subject of views become a material consideration. David Rowen stated that officers are trying to emphasise that the views involved in the proposal across the agricultural land, form a distinct part of the character of the settlement of Gorefield and to lose them would be of a detriment to the character.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that nobody owns a personal view, but the view is going to change in the public realm is his understanding.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that it is the second PIP that has come before the committee. He added that the proposal may change the view and character of the village, but it will always change the view for somebody. He expressed the view that he does not see anything wrong with the proposal and added that there are new build properties in the vicinity. Councillor Benney stated that it is not building in the open countryside as it is in the built form of Ringers Lane.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is very similar to different applications that have been brought before the committee and for that reason to remain consistent, he will be going against the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation. It was agreed that the conditions imposed on the permission be delegated to officers.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation as they feel under Policies LP12 and LP16 it will add to the character and appearance of the area rather than detract.