Agenda item

The meeting resumed at 15:19.

7 Public Speakers

Cllr Roger Wetherell - Kingston Parish Council.

Cllr Christine Bowman - East Preston Parish Council.

Mr Michael Barker - Objector.

Mr Roger Robinson-Brown - Objector.

Mr Peter Cleveland - Agent.

Cllr Mark Turner - Ward Member.

Cllr Roger Elkins - Ward Member.

Erection of 47 No. residential dwellings (including affordable homes) (resubmission following K/56/22/PL). This application is a Departure from the development Plan and is in CIL Zone 5 and is CIL liable as new dwellings.

The Interim Head of Development Management presented the report with updates. He also confirmed that a 2-meter footpath was to be provided, this question had been raised at the site visit that had taken place ahead of the meeting. As the location of the site was Grade 1 agricultural Land he also drew members attention to a recent appeal decision of another similar application where refusal of the application due to the land grading had been overturned by the appeal inspector on the grounds that the level of harm was classed as moderate.

After the speakers had been heard the Interim Head of Development Management was invited by the Chair to address comments that had been made. He stated that the council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and that the tilted balance applied. He addressed the drainage concerns that had been made and readvised the committee of the recent appeal that had been overturned by the appeals inspector. He outlined the differences between that site and this site and stated that the application was arguably less harmful that the overturned appeal site. In addressing comments made regarding the protection of agricultural land he referred back to the status and weight that had been applied previously as having been a ‘moderate level of weight’.

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor McDougall and seconded by Councillor Partridge.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where the following points were raised, concerns relating to developers returning with future applications for more houses should the application be approved, the layout of the application was commented as ‘uninspiring’. Concerns regarding the footpath were raised as it was felt that Kingston Lane was already not wide enough for vehicles to pass each other, let alone accommodate a footpath. Additionally concerns raised by members of the public relating to the level crossing were commented on. An early suggestion for a refusal reason was suggested by one member that the application would cause demonstrable harm to the gap and countryside. Comments were also made regarding the application being a departure from the development plan and outside the built-up boundary. Members also considered the impact should the application be refused and then overturned on appeal, specifically the costs that would be incurred by the council.

          The Group Head of Planning then reminded members, that all comments made by them during their debate had already been given prior consideration. He stated he understood that national policies were not favourable, however should the application be refused, an inspector would conclude that the impact on the gap was not significant enough. He explained to members that in planning terms the site was a good site and member would need to be able to demonstrate the weight afforded to the pro’s of the application, as defending the application for refusal would be very difficult and it would be likely that any inspector would find in favour of the developer. The Interim Head of Development Management then advised that the transport contribution had now been agreed in accordance with policy. He also stated that the application would provide CIL contributions that would be managed through the S106 agreement.

As requested during the debate a recorded vote was then undertaken. Those voting for the application were Blanchard-Cooper, Hamilton, McDougall, Northeast, Wallsgrove and Woodman (6). Those voting against the application were, Bower, Kelly, Lury, Partridge and Patel (5). There were no abstentions.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED WITH A S106 AGREEMENT.