Outline Planning Application (access to be considered) – for up to 30 dwellings and associated infrastructure includig public open space, landscaping, and sustainable  drainage.

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor Wiggins had declared that she was one of the local Ward Members and that she was pre-determined. She did not sit therefore as a Member of the Committee for this item, and she retired from the meeting whilst it was deliberated but exercised her right as a Ward Member to speak on the application.

Also, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor Scott, who was present in the public gallery, had declared that he was also one of the local Ward Members for the application and that he would speak on the application in that capacity.

It was reported that the application site was laying outside but abutting the Settlement Development Boundary in the adopted Local and Neighbourhood Plans; within a Green Landscape Buffer in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan; and within a draft Strategic Green Gap in the emerging Local Plan.

Members were informed that no objections had been raised by consultees and that the titled balance applied.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (AN) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“Additional Parish comments:

Additional comments in response to Savills’ letter dated 3rd June 2026.

We were disappointed to see that after we and dozens of residents pointed out the serious flaws in this application, and it initially being considered for refusal, this decision was reversed to be recommended for approval, despite clearly being in noncompliance with planning policy.

We’re concerned about the contents of a letter dated 3 June from Savills and that its questionable claims may have wrongly influenced the recommendation and may influence the decision of the Planning Committee on the 7th July. If the committee is minded to refuse the application it may also influence the Planning Inspector if the application goes to appeal.

The letter in question focuses on the Elmstead Neighbourhood Plan, calling core policies of this plan into question and seriously misinterpreting them. In a number of statements it is outright false, and to make a planning decision based on the information within would not only allow development that is noncompliant with policy, but set a concerning precedent for future decisions that such policies are not effective guides for decision makers.

To be clear, the application is outright noncompliant with 2 policies: ELM1 and ELM2.

ELM1 is a simple settlement development boundary policy. The application site in its entirety is outside of the settlement development boundary which the letter from agent does not dispute. The fact that one border of the site is adjacent to the boundary is irrelevant to the policy.

As stated in the letter, the adopted Local Plan, policies SP3,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13