Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Outline application for erection of 18 dwellings (appearance and scale reserved).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00118/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio Recording – 40 Minutes 17 Seconds

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

·                Paragraph 4.3.7 - delete (‘then s.52’);

·                Paragraph 4.3.45 - penultimate sentence should read ‘on the private car’ not ‘of’;

·                Paragraph 4.4.1- the citation of 4.3.34 should read 4.3.37;

·                RFR 3 -first sentence should read ‘on private transport’ not ‘of’;

·                RFR 5 - delete final ‘Plan’.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/00118/OP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Mrs Lynne Bogie thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 20/00118/OP, including:

·                It was poorly designed, inappropriate development of land in a rural position outside the development limits of Therfield;

·                The proposed development was urban in character, overcrowded, and wholly unsuited to a very visible site in the countryside;

·                The site was unsuitability in terms of highway and access, and failed to promote sustainability, for the reasons identified in the officer’s report;

·                There was likely to be serious traffic from such a major development; and

·                There were concerns about the road safety implications of a new major junction so close to her access lane.

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 20/00118/OP, including:

·                There was an absence in the five year land supply and an out-of-date Local Plan;

·                Significant weight should be given to the social, economic and environmental benefits of the development;

·                More housing would meet the needs of the village and local residents;

·                The development would provide much needed family homes;

·                A building was erected in 1972 on the land and therefore this site met the definition of Previously Developed Land; and

·                The benefits of the development outweighed the harm to heritage asset.

The following Members sought clarification of Mr Calder’s presentation:

·                Councillor David Levett.

In response to the Member’s question, Mr Calder advised that the density of the development was greater than the surrounding villages and there were 31 dwellings per hectare.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:

·                The tilted balance was not engaged; and

·                The definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL) excluded buildings that were in agricultural use. The building erected on the site in 1972 was likely used for agricultural purposes and therefore the site did not qualify for the PDL status.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen; and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

Points raised by Members included:

·                The overdevelopment of the area; and

·                The site was 3x more unsuitable than the previously application.

It was proposed by Councillor Allen to refuse the application as per the Officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Hunter. Upon being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00118/OP be REFUSED planning permission as per the reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

NB: There was a break at 20:27 and the Committee resumed at 20:38.