Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report 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 Peter Humphrey, the agent, and Mr Grainger, the applicant. Mr Humphrey referred to the current Local Plan where it was alluded that there would be freedom, a bit more tolerance, a bit more allowance of discretion for members and agents and no village boundaries but unfortunately, in his opinion, officers are more stringent, which then leads this site to being the perfect site as the Local Plan was written for in 2014. He feels it is a perfect edge of village development site, it has a main County drain opposite which, in his opinion, is clearly not only the County boundary but the boundary for the village, with there being houses beyond this site.

Mr Humphrey stated the sequential test carried out was village wide only, unfortunately there is no specific guidance on the sequential test so it is up to the discretion of the planning officers on whether it should be a district-wide or a village-wide test. He stated that the application site is within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, which for a very flat site he feels is ironic but that is the way that the Environment Agency have allocated it.

Mr Humphrey notes from Parish Council correspondence that they are looking for up to 7 more houses within the village and this proposal could offer two or three. He stated that all highway issues have been agreed with highways and, in his view, the site is adjacent to the built form of the village and when you look at the site plan that the officer displayed members will see it is adjacent to an existing bungalow.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that there have been footpaths/walkways that his client owns linking these plots to the middle of the village which is within comfortable walking distance to the church, shop and more importantly the public house with also the golf course within walking distance in the other direction so this proposal is more accessible to most village amenities than most of the village. He added that the description for this application is for the erection of up to 3 houses so it could be 2 but it has been shown that the site will accommodate 3 and requested that members considered this application in accordance with spirit of the 2014 Local Plan when it was first written.

Mr Grainger stated that the view that members saw when you approach Cats Lane was not the view that used to be there it was just literally an overgrown mess and dumping site so the work that has been undertaken has been done by his family.

Members asked questions of Mr Humphrey and Mr Grainger as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Humphrey if he said the Parish Council supported the proposal? Mr Humphrey responded no, it has listed that it wants 7 new dwellings for the village.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Humphrey saying that there was not any guidance in terms of the sequential test but feels he either did not get it or something went wrong as he is sure the sequential test guidance went out and elsewhere locations which this is according to officers would have to be subject to a District-wide test but if it is a village location it would be village-wide. Mr Humphrey responded that he understands this but he believes these 2-3 plots are within the village form so it is a matter of discretion and interpretation.

Members asked officers questions as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarification regarding the situation around the sequential test. David Rowen responded that the view of officers is that this is not a site within the built form of the village and therefore it does not comply with the settlement hierarchy of a small village where infill within the existing built form would be acceptable rather than an extension consequently the sequential test as set out in the adopted guidance that Councillor Sutton was alluding to would require the test to be District-wide rather than village based.

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

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that it is a question of whether the committee feels this site is in an elsewhere location, there have been several other places where members have disagreed with officer’s opinion but he feels that this decision is right and he does not think it can be regarded as being within the village boundary.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that members should take into account what the Parish Council is saying, whilst it is saying they want 7 houses they are saying not here as it is not sustainable and that should be taken into account.

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

(All members present declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)