Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 21/03533/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the following reasons:

“The application site is outside of the settlement envelope of Therfield in a location designated as rural area beyond the Green Belt. The proposed development therefore conflicts in principle with Policies SP2, SP5 and CGB1 of the Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (2022) which seek to focus new housing within defined settlement boundaries.”

Audio recording – 6 minutes 27 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following update:

·         The application was for three residential units in Therfield.

·         Since the publication of the report, a letter of objection had been received from the Parish Council and had been circulated to Members.

·         This application had been presented to the Committee previously, however following the adoption of the new Local Plan the application had to be submitted again.

·         Previously developed land was land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, whereas brownfield land was previously developed land that is no longer being used.

·         These terms were often used interchangeably in Planning, but the Planning Officer did not believe that this technicality was relevant for the purposes of this application.

·         Point of clarification in Paragraph 4.7.7, the second sentence was amended to: “All planning applications are considered on merit, and this site already has Officer recommendation for approval and Members resolve to grant permission”.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/03533/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

In response to a question from Councillor Michael Muir, the Senior Planning Officer advised that it was for Highways to address the matter of visibility when entering the road.

The Chair invited Ms Lynne Bogie to speak against the application. Ms Bogie thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·         There was concern regarding the application and the manner the application had been dealt with.

·         The application went against the New Local Plan and Policies.

·         The application would extend the village on a narrow and busy road.

·         The site would cause harm to local assets, and with no public transport in the village, car traffic would increase in the area.

·         The nature of the roads meant that there was no safe access to the site and the village centre.

·         There were multiple planning harms in the planning application.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Ms Bogie for her presentation and invited Mr Matthew Wood to speak in support of the application. Mr Wood thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

·         The Officer’s report was impartial and the five year plan was improved.

·         The site was not agricultural and unspoilt, with a history of use.

·         The urban and industrial character of the site did not fit in with the village.

·         The application for three residential dwellings would allow a resolution to this, as the site would be more in keeping with the village location.

·         The concrete would be removed, access to the site would be narrowed and side edges would be enhanced with soft landscaping.

·         There would be ample room for significant planting, which would contribute to a biodiversity net gain.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

Councillor Daniel Allen commented that this was previously developed land and would follow the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

Councillor David Levett commented that the previous application did not consider the new Local Plan. The current planning application did not comply with policies and the new Local Plan.

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised that harm needed to be identified to refuse the application. The opinion of the Planning Officer was that the policy benefits of this application outweigh the harm.

Councillor Tony Hunter commented that the previous Planning Officer advised that the site was not Brownfield, which conflicted with the new application which suggested that the site was Brownfield. He further commented that the site was outside of the settlement boundary and did not comply with the new policies.

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted paragraph 5.1 of the report which stated that the Local Planning Authority may depart from an updated development plan if material cases stated that planning cannot be followed. The planning application does not present harm, but had benefit.

Councillor Tom Tyson commented that there was definite policy conflict, however the application suggested improvement to the area. He commented that he could not see harm in the proposal, but was cautious when approving development outside of a village boundary.

Councillor Sean Nolan commented that approval of the application could contravene the new Local Plan.

The Acting Development and Conservation Manager advised that each application was assessed individually, and harms and benefits are identified in each application. She advised that the benefits to this application outweigh the harms.

Councillor David Levett commented that he felt the planning application went against the new Local Plan and was outside of a settlement boundary, which was harmful.

Councillor David Levett proposed and Councillor Tony Hunter seconded and after a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 21/03533/FP be REFUSED planning permission due to the following reasons:

“The application site is outside of the settlement envelope of Therfield in a location designated as rural area beyond the Green Belt. The proposed development therefore conflicts in principle with Policies SP2, SP5 and CGB1 of the Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (2022) which seek to focus new housing within defined settlement boundaries.”