Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Mr Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey stated that in his view the benefit of Planning in Principle (PIP) applications is that they are better than pre-applications due to the fact that a formal recommendation is obtained and there is not a large cost implication for his clients to pay out in order to ascertain whether it is worth submitting an application. He added that they are also reviewed and turned around quickly by the officers with a quick decision, with a PIP application reverting back to previous times where a red line would be shown on a piece of land and the Planning Department would make a decision in outline, but the name has changed to a PIP.

Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and pointed out site and the continuous built frontage and explained that there is a house beyond the development site which acts as a stop. He added that he cannot understand the officer’s point of view when they state that it is not continuous built-up frontage as it is natural infill.

Mr Humphrey made the point that the site is also very close to the developed executive homes on Bar Drove and it is the development which is furthest north as you look at Bar Drove which is adjacent to the proposal site where there is just one side frontage. He made the point that he does not mean to change the description when he states ‘self-build’, in the sense that the Planning Officer’s mean and explained that his objective is to deliver plots and he does not want them labelled as self-build as he wants to have more marketable plots but he is aware that this is an area where people do like to build their own houses.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that he would class this as a village gateway site and there are 230 houses proposed in the draft Local Plan and the application before members offers four plots which will help employment during construction, and he asked the committee to support the proposal.

Members asked Mr Humphrey the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the proposal would include a footpath and Mr Humphrey stated that the proposal does not include a footpath.

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

·       Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that the proposal is intrusion into the open countryside and extends the village when there would appear to be plenty of building opportunities at some stage. He added that there is a built form which finishes at the road junction to the southwest and there is an isolated fen type settlement just beyond it.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and decided that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Sutton declared that he had called the application into committee and had attended meetings with residents where the application had been mentioned so took no part in the discussion or voting thereon for this item)