Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Allison Curtis, the applicant. Ms Curtis advised members that she lives at East View, Gote Lane which has been her home for over 20 years and previously belonged to her former in-laws. She expressed the view that she has been lucky enough to bring up her three children here and has an abundance of memories contained in her home.

Ms Curtis stated that in 2005 her then husband was involved in a horrific RTA which left him with severe head injuries and led to the unfortunate break down of their marriage in 2008, finding herself a single mum of 3 children living in a large house with an even larger garden which she cannot cope with on her own. She stated that she has always worked two jobs to keep afloat, with one of them being a small business which she runs from home, and she would lose this if she is forced to sell her home to downsize.

Ms Curtis referred to one of her clients, who had become a close family friend, being a councillor and he suggested that she apply for planning for an infill plot, which would cut down her workload and make her garden look better under control when her clients visited. She stumbled through the process at that time only to get her application refused, it is now a few years on, and she has a little more understanding as to why her original application was refused, but with that limited understanding comes her reasoning for disagreeing with the recommendation at this time.

Ms Curtis stated that she is unable to see why this development is not acceptable in principle, it is well within the village sign this being about 30 metres away from the property and after this there is quite an open area but not so much before this. She has always considered that she lives very much in the heart of the village being just about 350 metres away from the centre within easy walking distance of every amenity on offer and she used to walk her children to Gorefield Primary every day and they then walked to end of the lane to get the bus to High School.

Ms Curtis expressed the view that she stills walks to the post office, the butchers, to the beer fest at the Pavilion and also walks her granddaughter to the playing field when she is visiting and feels she is lucky to live in Gorefield. She stated that her house and intended plot is not on agricultural land but on her garden and is to her mind a logical infill plot, it is far from an open space currently due to the trees being so dreadfully overgrown, another issue from her limited gardening skills, and they are getting to the point of becoming dangerous and she has approached a local company to cut them down before high winds come again.

Ms Curtis expressed the opinion that there were no other plots available in the village and currently only 5 properties for sale in the whole of Gorefield. She feels strongly that Gorefield is a wonderful up and coming village in which to raise a family and she would love to give someone the opportunity to build their own dreams there.

Ms Curtis stated that she has submitted 10 letters of support from people in the village, with offers from several more, and the Parish Council are in support of the application, which she feels means they can see the same potential as her that another property in this location would add sustainability to the village and can only bring positive outcomes to all parties involved. She expressed the opinion that the plot is a decent size, 18 metres wide by 52 metres deep, and has been reliably informed that this is a larger than average plot.

Ms Curtis stated that whilst she does not profess to understand all the ins and outs of planning applications, committees, summaries and frameworks, she felt the need to explain why she is continuing with this application. She is unable to cope with her land but she cannot bear to have to sell her house and downsize, she does not want to give up the happy memories she has fought so hard to resurrect, the home she single-handedly fought to keep so that her children not only had a roof over their head but had an amazing village and community to give them the idyllic childhood they deserved despite the circumstances they found themselves in, with the small business she runs being her lifeline and is continuing to build again following the devastation that was Covid. 

Ms Curtis recognises her reasons are emotional and not particularly procedural, but feels they are equally valid, and she hopes due to the whole package members would be able to grant approval of this application.

Members asked questions of Ms Curtis as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked what kind of business is run from her home? Ms Curtis responded that she has a log cabin which she runs a hairdressing business out of. Councillor Benney asked if she would be able to continue with the business if she has to sell and move? Ms Curtis responded that if she could find a suitable property with room but she would have to apply for appropriate planning. She stated that at the moment she has a log cabin and has lots of clients in the village and from the outskirts of the village who probably would not be able to travel elsewhere and there are few appropriate properties in the village to remain there so it would effectively mean her business would close.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that looking at the plan the proposal looks like infill to him, there are houses to the side and opposite, and he cannot see it being anything else but infill. David Rowen responded that from an officer point of view the site is outside the continuous built form of the settlement as defined in the relevant policies of the Local Plan and whether it is between two existing properties or in isolation or whatever scenario the principle of a residential development in that location is not acceptable and conflicts with policy.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is all down to interpretation, what councillors feel is infill and what officers do and there is often disagreement between the two. In her view, looking at the plan, it looks like infill.

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

·       Councillor Topgood echoed what other councillors have expressed that, in his view, the site is infill and there is a natural line going towards the village. He personally does not have an issue with the application, in his opinion, it will be a lovely house for somebody to live in, a nice location and the amenities are far beyond what some people get in towns. As far as public transport is concerned, Councillor Topgood expressed the opinion that this has been spoken about at committee time and again, it is a rural community people are going to need cars and you are never going to get cycleways and buses at people’s doors. He considers it infill and would go against officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Benney stated it looks like an infill to him and this is an applicant who has a business here and if she has to move out of the area this would affect the residents who live there and use her business. He expressed the view that there has been debate before about where officers feel boundaries stop and this is in walking distance of the village, so he is inclined to support the application.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with some of the comments of other members but asked how the committee gets over the sequential test issue. He made the point that the committee has just refused an application due to the sequential test, deferred another and this is another one that has not fulfilled the requirement for a sequential test and how would it look if this one is approved. He feels the only option in this case is to do the same as for a previous application and defer the application for a sequential test to be undertaken.

·       Councillor Murphy stated he was going to raise this issue as it cannot be requested on one and not another one. He would like it to come back straight away with the sequential test but expressed the view the situation is getting ridiculous as if applications are supposed to have a sequential test or any other assessment and it is not submitted it should be immediately rejected.

·       Councillor Marks asked if it states on the application form that they have to produce a sequential test before putting an application in?

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that this keeps happening month after month, she did ask a question previously about the checklist of requirements and was told by officers that they cannot force the applicants to do it and the wording of the response was woolly.

·       Nick Harding stated that for validation checks on an application there is a list that applicants need to work to and advice and guidance on the website about whether or not a particular item on the checklist is relevant to their application. He stated that if an application is submitted with a tick to say Flood Risk Assessment and Sequential Exceptions Test a document that purports to cover those items should be submitted and the application starts to be processed. He made the point that it is when the Case Officer reads the document and feels the content is somewhat light or non-existence there is an issue.

·       Councillor Marks asked if it says you need to submit this document, yes or no or is it left woolly? Nick Harding responded that the Flood Risk Assessment with a sequential test was submitted in this instance, but the content was light. He referred to an example if he submitted an application for 50 homes that would trigger the need for a transport assessment and if a document entitled transport assessment was submitted and its content said “not many cars or buses would come to this site, everything is going to be fine” this is not adequate in terms of content but a document entitled transport assessment has been submitted. Councillor Marks recognised that it is professionals in the main that are submitting applications but questioned whether it was clear on what is required rather than an overview, which he feels is woolly, and is why, in his view, committee is in this situation today. Nick Harding responded that the advice is really clear, it is contained within the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance as to what is required when submitting a sequential test.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that in one hand there is not a sequential test but in the other hand there was a sequential test but it was not sufficient so it is interpretation, and it is up to this committee to determine if it has been undertaken or not and whether the application can be approved or not.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that she does not have the technical ability to know whether it was undertaken properly. Nick Harding responded that David Rowen’s presentation outlined to members that the sequential test submitted was a quick check on Zoopla. David Rowen read the relevant section of the committee report at 10.12 relating to this issue.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that the reason as to why members are in this situation rests squarely on the committees’ shoulders because time again the sequential test has been ignored, citing an example near Wisbech St Mary, and it is no surprise that agents and applicants watch the committee and see them overriding the sequential test and saying it does not matter and it is no surprise that these applications are being submitted with no sequential tests or inadequate ones as it is felt the committee is going to pass them anyway.

·       Councillor Murphy made the point that it is not up to the committee to discuss this issue, it is up to the agents to get it right and if they cannot be bothered to complete the checklist properly it is the agents fault. He feels they are trying to get away without doing the work and this should not be allowed to continue.

·       Councillor Mrs French said she has been making these comments for years, if not all the information or documents are there it should not be validated, and she has discussed this with the portfolio holder and she has been told that things are going to change. She made the point that officers are not there to do agents work and she hoped that the portfolio holder was listening, and the issue could be addressed as soon as possible.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that whatever happens here members need to refer to the comments he made at the last meeting if the application is being refused, is it being refused for all the reasons for refusal as if members say they do not believe it is in the countryside but in Gorefield village they need to say this now. He feels that the committee need to look at the refusal reasons and see which ones they agree with, many people of Gorefield believe this site is in Gorefield and he questioned who are members to disagree but members need to be clear.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he tried to steer the refusal at that last meeting following Councillor Sutton’s comments and would like the committee to take these comments on board and would like to steer this in that direction if committee agree.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis stated that members may need some advice from officers because if it is agreed that the committee does not believe it is an elsewhere location then that changes the sequential test, so to be fair to Ms Curtis she needs to be told what she needs to do.

·       Councillor Benney agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton, members need to define the reasons for refusal, referring to another application where not all the reasons for refusal were agreed with, and whether the committee wants to refuse this application on all the reasons. In his view, it is not in an elsewhere location and if the applicant comes back with an acceptable sequential test, it can be approved, but members need to get the decision right.

·       Councillor Topgood agreed with the comments of Councillors Benney and Sutton, and he does not feel it is in an elsewhere location.

·       Nick Harding stated that if someone is going to make a proposal on refusing the application then, as has been indicated by Councillors Sutton and Benney, members need to make a decision on whether they agree with all three reasons for refusal and if there are a number that members do not agree with then they need to set out the reasons why they do not agree.

·       David Rowen added that, in respect of where residents feel the village extent is, the appeal decision reported a couple of meetings ago to refuse the PIP application at the Rectory in Benwick, the Inspector stated that the Local Plan does not rely on defined settlement boundaries rather requires a physical assessment to be made to determine whether or not the site in within a village for the purposes of LP12 and goes on to say this results in a site which could come to be in general terms part of the village but not in the village for the purposes of the spatial strategy and this is a key issue on whether it is an elsewhere location or not as to whether it is part of the continuous built settlement as set out in Local Plan.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that this is still subjective, and that Planning Inspector may have made that decision but had that been another Planning Inspector a different decision might have been made and the Council has seen in the past that even the same inspector made one decision one time and a different decision next time on an application in Wimblington so it is not hard and fast. He feels that it is subjective, the committee still has the ability to make the decision if members think the site is part of the village, but he is still on the fence about this but is not on the fence about the sequential test as he cannot see how this can be passed based on the decisions made previously.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be REFUSED on the grounds that the successful completion of a sequential test for the village has not been submitted.

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal for reasons 1 (essential need) and 2 (harm to the character of the open countryside) as they feels the site is part of the village, the dwelling will make a positive contribution to the village and will add value to the village by keeping a business operating providing services to residents in the village.