Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for erection of 6 dwellings (all matters except access reserved).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00117/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 7 Minutes 45 Seconds

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were some corrections to be made to the report, as follows:

·                Paragraph 4.3.9 - delete (‘then s.52’);

·                Paragraph 4.3.43 - penultimate sentence should read ‘on the private car’ not ‘of’;

·                Reason for refusal (RFR) 2. First sentence should read ‘on private transport’ not ‘of’; and

·                RFR 4 - delete final ‘plan’.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00117/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Mrs Lynne Bogie thanked the Chair the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00117/OP, including:

·                It was inappropriate development of land in a rural position outside the development limits of Therfield, a site which did not meet the criteria for inclusion as a development site in the Emerging Local Plan;

·                The site was unsuitable in terms of highway and access and failed to promote sustainability;

·                An access for the proposed development immediately next to this existing junction would be highly dangerous;

·                Planning permission had been granted in 1992 to use the site for the open storage of agricultural machinery and as an operating depot for four heavy goods vehicles. This use was ongoing and generated a significant amount of vehicular movements each day;

·                The site was Previously Developed Land and attracted favourable treatment when considering development; and

·                The only significant use of the site, and the only significant traffic movements, would arise out of the unlawful breakers and scrap yard referred to in the officer’s report.

The Chair thanked Mrs Bogie for her presentation.

Mr Michael Calder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00117/OP, including:

·                Officers agreed that the application was to be determined in accordance of the planning balance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·                The difference between the applicant and the Officer was whether the tilted balance applied and the weight of harms and benefits in the planning balance;

·                There were three strands to sustainability: social, economic and environmental;

·                In respect of the social strand, in the light of the shortfall in the Council’s five year land supply and delay in the emerging local plan, the delivery of much needed family housing should be considered;

·                The NPPF supported the provision of developments in rural locations such as Therfield;

·                Housing could enhance local amenities, supporting paragraph 78 in the NPPF, and putting weight on the planning balance;

·                The development of housing would bring economic benefits such as job creation, local labour supply chain and household spending on local services;

·                Changing the land use from commercial to residential would have little impact on the character of the area;

·                There would be four parking spaces per unit, a double garage and visitor parking spaces; and

·                Access to the centre of the village would be via public right of way networks.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised by referring to page 70, Previously Developed Land in the NPPF, and advised that it was his view that the site was not on previously developed land.

The following Members sought clarification from the Principal Planning Officer:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala;

·                Councillor Val Bryant; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised as follows:

·                In relation to paragraph 3.4 within the report, it was felt that given the recommendation was to refuse the application, a flood risk assessment was not necessary; and

·                Members were directed to paragraphs 195 – 197 in the NPPF in regards to heritage assets.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Daniel Allen; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

Points raised in the debate included:

·                Failing to meet parking requirements;

·                The site was not in the emerging local plan;

·                There were objections from the Local Lead Flood Authority, CPRE and the Environment Agency; and

·                The development was outside the settlement boundary.

It was proposed by Councillor Levett and seconded by Councillor Allen to refuse planning permission and upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00117/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.