Agenda item

To determine the application

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.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Gareth Edwards, the Agent.

Mr Edwards referred to the officer’s report stating that Gorefield is a small village under LP3 development will be considered on its merits but will normally be limited in scale to residential infilling and, in his opinion, this is the case with this proposal as it infills between the existing dwellings on the High Road and the existing drain which is consistent with other developments that have been approved in the district. He highlighted that the site is within the village as it falls within the 30mph speed limit, adding that the built form opposite extends beyond the proposed site. The proposal does fall within flood zone 2, however there have been recent approvals in the district that have been at a much greater risk of flooding being in flood zone 3.

Mr Edwards expressed the opinion that the site is within the built form of the village and therefore the search area should be Gorefield for the sequential test purposes. The officer’s report states the sequential test confirmed that there are no other available sites in the lower flood risk areas of Gorefield.

He added that all villages need growth to support the local amenities and Gorefield benefits from a public house, shop, post office, butchers shop, school and preschool and additional houses would provide further support to these businesses.

Mr Edwards stated that he had attended a Parish Council meeting and some of the points that were raised during the discussions at that meeting included that there was a need for new houses, that it was a logical area for development is infill development within the 30mph speed limit, would naturally slow down traffic with dwellings on each side of the road, there was a need for a mixture of housing types and it would balance the village. He highlighted that Gorefield has a diverse mixture of houses which includes the High Road, where houses, bungalows and chalet bungalows and provides opportunities for first time buyer’s families and retired people. The applicant owns the adjacent farm and as they are reaching the age of retirement the next generation will be more involved in the day to day running of the farm with the first plot nearest the farm being for the applicant’s son.

Mr Edwards concluded by reiterating that the site is within the built form of Gorefield and will help reduce vehicle speeding in the area. It will provide much needed new housing in the village and is supported by the Parish Council, Cambridgeshire Highways and 9 letters of support from local residents and he asked members to approve the application with any conditions they feel appropriate.

Members asked Mr Edwards the following questions.

·         Councillor Murphy asked Gareth Edwards why a sequential test for the whole area has not been carried out. Mr Edwards stated that there are other areas in villages and towns that will have development within flood zone 1. He added that in his opinion the proposal is within the built form of Gorefield and is within the village signs, so the sequential test area should only be Gorefield.

·         Councillor Meekins commented that whilst he does not disagree with the need for villages to expand, the particular area is predominantly bungalows and the outline design that has been submitted are for substantial two storey four bedroomed houses, which, in his opinion, do not seem to fit with the street scene. Mr Edwards responded by saying that the layout is only indicative and is only to illustrate and demonstrate what could be achieved.

·         Councillor Meekins added that the proposal is for four bedroomed houses and there is no provision for anybody wishing to join the property ladder. Mr Edwards reiterated that it is only an indicative layout. The Chairman added that if planning permission was approved, then discussion could take place with officer’s regarding the further detail.

·         Councillor Bristow asked whether the local schools are oversubscribed in the village. Mr Edwards confirmed that he is unsure with regard to the available provision in the preschool, however, he believes that there are vacancies in the primary school.

·         Councillor Hay commented that the suggestion was made that the proposal was infill as it is adjacent to garden land on one side and a drain on the other, however, in her opinion infill is where a proposal is between two properties and not between a drain and garden land. Mr Edwards responded by saying there has been a similar project in Church End, Parson Drove, where the development was infill between a house and a drain and that was deemed as a natural boundary and the proposal before members today is the same.

·         Councillor Benney queried whether the houses opposite the proposed development site are within the boundary of Gorefield. Mr Edwards stated that his understanding is that the village boundary runs just beyond the land to the right hand side. Councillor Benney asked whether the proposed development will be in the village of Gorefield and Mr Edwards stated that it would be.

·         Councillor Bristow asked when the existing dwellings were built opposite the proposed site. Mr Edwards stated that there is a mixture of dwellings, some of which are from the 1940’s, through to the current day, where some dwellings are near completion.

Gavin Taylor clarified some of the points that members had made:

With regard to village boundaries, the village boundaries are not set within the Local Plan. They are settled through the application of LP3 and LP12 (a) and the footnote which defines where sites are and are not inside the settlement. He highlighted to members on the presentation screen the dwellings on the southern side of the High Road and, with regard to LP12, the dwellings would be considered to be inside the settlement because they continue back in towards Gorefield and some of the developments that are coming forward are clearly infill sites because they sit between two buildings.

He provided a definition of infill as per the glossary of the Local Plan which defines residential infilling as development of sites between existing buildings and, on that basis, officers would not consider that a drain is a building.

He clarified the location of the 30mph speed sign and added that the position of the sign does not define where the settlement starts and ends and it does not feature in the footnote to LP12 (a) as a definition either.

Councillor Benney stated that LP3 of the Local Plan states that in small villages, development will be considered on its merits but will normally be of a very limited nature and normally be limited in scale to residential infilling or a small business opportunity. He added that ‘normally’ means variable, and therefore, it is not fixed. All villages need to have growth and new houses, in order to keep the amenities and schools in place and If this application is not approved it penalises the village of Gorefield.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Bligh added that the application has the full support of the Parish Council and she is disappointed that not enough notice is taken of the Parish Council’s views and beliefs. The application has no technical issues from the main statutory consultees.

·         Councillor Hay commented that there needs to be consistency when determining planning applications. There is a Local Plan which needs to be taken into consideration. In the last 3 months similar applications have been taken to appeal and both applications were dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspector. Officers updated members with details concerning the appeals Councillor Mrs Hay had referred to.

·         Nick Harding reiterated that the policy does include the word normal, however, members need to consider that decisions need to be taken into accordance with planning policy and therefore, if members are minded to go against the policy and the officer recommendation, there needs to be clear reasons given so that members can demonstrate that with this particular application they can state what special circumstances are in play which justify why a departure from normal policy should be allowed.

·         Councillor Marks asked that if the application had been submitted was just for one dwelling would that be acceptable. Nick Harding stated that the application before members is for residential development and no part of the proposal was to ring fence any single property for a member of the family and we would not be able to impose a condition in relation to that. If a completely different application had been submitted and that was for an agricultural dwelling then that would need to go through the normal process of trying to establish whether or not the dwelling was genuinely needed in relation to an agricultural business.

·         Councillor Hay added that members must adhere to the Local Plan and the proposal is clearly against LP12 and LP3 and if members want to approve the application, they need to demonstrate how the application is in accordance with those two parts of the Local Plan.

Proposed by Councillor Meekins, seconded by Councillor Bristow and decided on the casting vote of the Chairman that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Clark registered, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the code of conduct on planning matters that she had been lobbied on this item)