Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of 62 dwellings, associated garaging, parking and infrastructure.

Councillor Everett had earlier declared a prejudicial interest in relation to Planning Application 16/01797/OUT by virtue of the fact that he was predisposed and pre-determined due to the fact that he had served a claim for judicial review against the Council in relation to the issue of the Council’s 5 year housing land supply in the context of the Local Plan which was relevant to the afore-mentioned application.

Councillor Heaney declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Planning Application 16/01797/OUT by virtue of the fact that she was a local Ward Member.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Nicholls, a local Ward Member.

Members were informed that the applicant had referred this matter to appeal against non-determination and therefore the Council could no longer determine the application.

The Officers’ report detailed why Officers considered that the application would have been recommended for refusal and Members were invited to endorse the Officers’ recommendation as the basis for defending the forthcoming appeal.

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 refusal.

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

Gary Smith, the Head Teacher of Market Field School and a local resident, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Ron Fairweather, representing Elmstead Market Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Nicholls, a local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Jonathan Hills, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Everett withdrew from the meeting, on the grounds of being predisposed and pre-determined, whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Heaneyand unanimously RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to defend the forthcoming planning appeal and argue that outline planning permission for the development should be refused for the following reasons:

·        The site lies outside the settlement development boundary for Elmstead Market as defined in both the adopted and emerging Local Plans. The Council is very close to being able to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and the new Local Plan is progressing well, so the urgency to approve housing developments contrary to the Local Plan is low. The NPPF advocates a plan-led approach that actively seeks to achieve sustainable patterns of growth, but this development would add to what is already considered to be a disproportionate level of new housing development in Elmstead Market. In applying the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, the adverse impacts of the proposal, both on the character of Elmstead Market and on the Council’s ability to manage growth through the plan-led approach, are not outweighed by the benefits. The development is unnecessary and there is no support from the local community or any overriding public benefits that might warrant the proposal being considered in an exceptional light.

•        No Section 106 agreement to secure affordable housing, education contributions, health contributions and open space has been completed.