Agenda item

The application was for the construction of 20 residential units in the form of 9x4 bedroom, 7x3 bedroom, 3x2 bedroom and 1x1 bedroom units, together with ancillary parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing structures.

The applicant had submitted an appeal for non-determination and the Planning Inspectorate was now the determining authority however for the appeal it was necessary to conclude what the Council’s decision would have been had the Council been the determining authority.

It was noted that the site, which was located on Green Belt land, was currently used as a private equestrian concern and the proposed development would result in a more permeable form of development resulting in an encroaching urbanising effect that would be at odds with the rural character of the wider surrounding area

The application site was situated outside the settlement boundaries, in a rural location approximately 2.5km away from the nearest village with no local amenities in a safe walking distance from the site.  Access was via a 40mph rural road with no pedestrian footway and little lighting making it unsafe for pedestrians  and less desirable for cyclists the site was therefore considered to be vehicle dependent and occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be reliant on private vehicles.  Consequently the proposed development was considered to be in an unsustainable location for residential uses of this scale.

The presence of residential accommodation on site for those using the existing equestrian facilities was acknowledged however it was stressed that this was not comparable to that of the proposed development not only in terms of bulk and mass but also in respect of the seasonal nature of the equestrian facilities which meant activity on site was minimal between October and March with activity primarily taking place on the site itself or at the adjacent polo fields. 

It was noted that the 15% affordable housing offer proposed fell short of the 40%  level expected for a site of this size in the Council’s Core Strategy policy documents.

Taking all these factors into account the proposed development was considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and that its quantum, spread and overall height would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would result in encroachment into the countryside.  The proposals met none of the exceptions for development in the Green Belt as detailed in Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework and there were no special circumstances to outweigh the Green Belt harm.

The officer recommendation that had the Council been the determining authority then the application would have been refused was proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Shaun Garrett, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that, had the Council been the determining authority, then Planning Application 22/1001/FFU would have been refused.

NOTE 1

It was noted that a site visit had been undertaken prior to the meeting.

NOTE 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution the voting in favour of the motion to refuse the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the motion to refuse:

Councillors Cliff Betton, Shaun Garrett, Mary Glauert, Nirmal Kang, Liz Noble, David  O’Mahoney, David Whitcroft, Helen Whitcroft, Victoria Wheeler, Valerie White and Richard Wilson.

Voting against the motion to refuse:

None

Abstaining:

Councillor Ying Perrett