Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update 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 Mr Peter Humphrey, the Agent. Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and explained that the white triangles displayed highlight the developed frontage pointing out to the committee the only other gap on the southern point where it shows FDC Draft Local Plan and there is an allocation for the other open space for 6 dwellings and then further along on the slide it shows the proposal that the committee are determining. He expressed the view that the proposal should be one of the simplest, easiest Planning in Principle application that has been submitted as it is only for frontage and it is of a very similar format to the rest of the village.

Mr Humphrey added that there is an estate to the top left-hand side of the slide on the screen but, in his view, the majority of Friday Bridge is frontage, and frontage development is more sustainable making the point that why would there be a backland development where a new road would have to be implemented with all of the amenities when there is an existing frontage. He stated that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and there are 16 dwellings after the proposal site and before you reach The Stitch and there is already a footpath up to Laddus Drove which is to the south of Needham Bank, but he would be happy to extend the footpath along this site frontage to make it safer for everyone in the village.

Mr Humphrey referred to the presentation screen and explained the proximity of the site to the assumed village centre which contains the school, pub and shop and expressed the view that the site is so much closer than The Stitch and 50% of the village but the opinion of officers is that the site is in the wrong location. He made the point that the draft Local Plan proposes infill only gaps and it also proposes 230 dwellings for a limited infill village and, in his opinion, the proposal before the committee is more logical.

Mr Humphrey stated that there is shortage of plots for people to build their own properties but officers have stated that there is not a shortage on self-build plots, however, in his view, there is a difference in the Council’s self-build, custom build register of plots that people want to buy and build their own. He stated that the proposal site is a classic site which can be divided up into 9 plots and the plots will be sold quickly as he is aware that there is a demand for available plots and he asked the committee to consider and approve the application.

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

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application site falls within part of her County Council division and it is Councillor Sutton’s district ward. She made reference to the points made in the officer’s report from Councillor Sutton where he has stated that  ‘Both sites, ref: F/YR22/1123/PIP and F/YR/22/1124/PIP, are adjacent to the built form so are policy compliant both locally and nationally. Under the local plan Friday Bridge is a limited growth village where it is expected to deliver 10% of the total dwellings during the life of the plan, (58 dwellings) currently it has only delivered 35 whereas most villages, including Elm, are way over the 10%. With a shortfall of 23 and generally linear development, it would appear that this type of proposal is the only option of Friday Bridge to take its share of development’. Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the comments of Councillor Sutton and will support the proposal because not only will it support the linear development of the proposal site it will also help the rest of the village.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the point made by Councillor Mrs French and made the point that the 10% is not something that has to be met.

·         Nick Harding stated that the agent has made reference to the application being for self-build homes and that has not been mentioned in the application when it was submitted. He added that the drawing that the agent referred to on the presentation screen only included some of the allocations which are proposed within the village which were the road frontage ones and he added that there are other allocations which are proposed in the emerging Local Plan and there is nothing to suggest that two of those sites could not come forward under the auspices of the current plan policy. Nick Harding explained that given that those sites are being put forward to the Council by the landowner, there is no reason why the sites would not come forward in due course.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the committee are in place to look and listen to the new information which is brought forward. She stated that she is not pre-determined and whilst she understands the views of officers, there will need to be discussions between the agent and officers to clarify whether it is a self-build proposal, but, in her opinion, Friday Bridge is a village and she will support the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that the application has been submitted in an incomplete format and the agent has provided information during his presentation that the committee was not aware of. He added that it is incumbent of the agents to speak to the officers with as much information as possible and he appreciates that there will always be a last-minute addition but to find out now that the proposal is for self-build dwellings, he can understand the frustration of officers.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that there have been points discussed which have skewed his thinking and he agrees that it would have been ideal to have some of the points raised in the officer’s report and before the application came before the committee.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that consideration also need to be given to the points raised by Elm Parish Council and the fact that they have made reference to the nine access points that will be formed along a 60mph stretch of road with possibly up to four additional vehicles per dwelling is quite a considerable increase in traffic.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that the application is only being considered in a permission in principle format and aspects such as the access points along a road like that which is quite a fast road need to be taken into account.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the committee are considering the land use aspect of the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the local highway improvements are now being considered and Elm Parish Council can apply for the speed to be reduced along that road. She added that the proposal will include a footpath and that is something that will come under a local highway improvement, however, the Parish Council are only allowed one unlike the Town Councils and, therefore, in her opinion it is a prime opportunity to actually give something to the village.

·         David Rowen clarified that that the speed limit on this particular part of Needham Bank is actually 40mph rather than 60mph and the actual change from 30mph to 40mph is just to the west of the site.

·         David Rowen explained that Planning in Principle (PIP) applications are unusual applications due to the fact that the Government guidance on them is that a PIP cannot be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement and you also cannot grant a PIP subject to any conditions and, therefore, if members were minded to give any weight to the self-build elements or to the provision of a footpath, permission is being granted with no conditions and no Section 106 agreements and, therefore, they are not something that can be secured at this point. He added that the properties immediately to the west of the application site do not have footpaths along their frontage and he is not sure what purpose a footway along the front of the application site would necessarily achieve.

·         Councillor Mrs French questioned whether if a PIP application is approved when the application comes back as a full application can conditions be added at that stage? David Rowen stated that if a PIP is granted, there is then a technical consent stage and the difficulty would be if the application was granted in principle and then a footpath was not included as part of the technical consent stage, or the application was not proposed as self-build housing then those sorts of issues would perhaps be somewhat difficult to secure at the technical consent stage. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that if that were the case it would not a wise course of action for agents.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that he does not welcome PIP applications as in his view it is a way of submitting a planning application without actually providing a planning application and he thinks that they should be stopped. He expressed the view that there are so many restrictions once a PIP is approved and he does not agree with them at all. 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation, which failed on a majority vote by members.

In providing reasons for going against officer’s recommendation, Councillor Mrs French stated that in her opinion the application is compliant with both Local and National Planning Policies and that Friday Bridge is a growth village.

Proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation

(Councillor Sutton declared that he had called the application into committee and had attended meetings with residents where the application had been mentioned so took no part in the discussion or voting thereon for this item)