Agenda item

Erection of 32no dwellings, including 26 no affordable dwellings and 6 no private market dwellings representing a rural exception site with associated landscaping, play area, and access (Re-submission of 21/05640/FUL)

The Committee agreed, by affirmation, to an additional reason for refusal regarding the loss of agricultural land.

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, for the reasons for refusal listed in the report and added to by the Committee.

The Chair advised that correspondence from the applicant had been sent to all Members of the Committee, but not all had reviewed the correspondence, and officers had not received the correspondence. In order to allow for time to review the correspondence and make it available to the public, Councillor Peter Sandford, seconded by Councillor Peter Fane, proposed that the order of business be varied to take application 22/05427/FUL as the last item of business of the meeting. The Committee agreed to the proposal by affirmation.

The Committee moved to Minute 6 (application 23/03293/HFUL)

Following the conclusion of Minute 7 (application S/4329/18/COND21), the Committee returned to application 22/05427/FUL

The Chair noted that a Member site visit had been conducted for the application and the Principal Planner presented the report and provided an update on the correspondence received by Members and clarified a number of points raised by the correspondence:

·       Biodiversity Net Gain was assessed as bring 33.29% gain in habitat units alongside 20.74% gain in hedgerow units.

·       The proposed creation of a new footpath would connect the application site to the Shaw Close development to the north and no footway along Chrishall Road itself was proposed.

·       The indicated 30mph speed limit relocation was outside of the planning process.

·       75% reduction in carbon emissions and zero fossil fuel use was contained within the sustainability statement and could be conditioned for, if the Committee was minded to approve the application.

·       The retention of the woods could be secured through a S106 agreement.

·       No supporting letters from the two housing associations had been provided as evidence.

·       There was no guarantee that affordable homes would be required as a result of the new research and development hub at The Way, with identified housing need being based on current need rather than projected future need based on approved future development.

·       Officers did not view the site as a sustainable village location.

·       There were development constraints to the village of Fowlmere, such as green belt to the east, the Conservation Area within the centre of the village and countryside frontage for part of the western side.

The second of the recommended reasons for refusal was updated to also include reference to the loss of grade 3a agricultural land. In response to Member questions, officers provided clarity on:

·       The development to the north of the site at Shaw Close, an entry-level exception site which was being constructed at the time.

·       Housing mix- policy H/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing) did not require tenure-blind housing mix when market housing was included to facilitate the viability of the delivery of affordable housing in a rural exception site. Officers were satisfied that the inclusion of market housing was justified.

·       Parking- the majority of affordable housing proposed had on-plot parking, with on road-parking being provided for other plots.

·       Local connection- officers confirmed that a local connection cascade provision for the affordable was to be part of the S106 agreement (as described in paragraph 7.52 of the Local Plan 2018), if the Committee was minded to approve the application.

·       Assessing a small site- officers advised that there was no fixed definition for a small site and paragraph 8.16 of the report laid out the reasons as to why this was the case. Officers advised that they did not view the proposed number of units as appropriate for an exception site in a Group Village such as Fowlmere.

·       The requirement laid out in policy H/11 for an exception site to be adjoining the development framework boundary and the fact that the proposed site was not adjoining the development framework of Fowlmere.

·       The retention of the affordable housing in perpetuity in the form of affordable rent and shared ownership dwellings.

·       Officers’ view that the proposal did not relate well to the development to the north (Shaw Close).

The Committee was addressed by an objector, Salli Roskilly. The applicant, Colin Blundell, spoke on the application and, in response to Member questions, advised that a letter of support from Stonewall (a housing association) had been published on the Council’s website, and another letter of support had been received from MVTH which had been discussed with officers but possibly not provided to them. Steve Lester addressed the Committee as a public supporter of the application, and Councillor David Brock of Fowlmere Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council who supported the application. Councillor James Hobro addressed the Committee as local Member who described the application as carrying significant merit but the scale of the proposal was large for the scale of Fowlmere and that he supported the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

In the debate, Members described the application as one with both merits and reasons for refusal, with the Committee agreeing that the decision came down to the weighting of material considerations in the planning balance. Some Members raised concerns over the size of the development, feeling that it was inappropriate given the scale of the Fowlmere and its status as a Group Village, especially as the 5-year housing land supply for the village had been secured. Other concerns were raised, including lack of amenities in the village and the transport links in Fowlmere. Further concern was raised over the loss of agricultural land, but some felt that as the land had not been used for agricultural purposes in recent times, the weight given to this consideration should be small. The Committee agreed that the provision of affordable housing in South Cambridgeshire was a high priority and carried significant weight but, whilst some Members felt that the proposal was a good opportunity to provide affordable housing, many felt that need for affordable housing was outweighed on balance by the excessive scale of the proposal.

Prior to the vote on the application, the Committee agreed, by affirmation, with the update to the second reason for refusal to include reference to the loss of grade 3a agricultural land.

By 8 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Geoff Harvey, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford, Heather Williams and Eileen Wilson) votes to 1 (Councillor Peter Fane), the Committee refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. The reasons for refusal were:

1-    By virtue of its excessive scale, the proposal would neither meet the definition of ‘small sites’ nor be of a scale appropriate to the size and facilities of the settlement. Given the application site would neither adjoin the development framework boundary nor be well related to the settlement’s built-form and taking into account the limited facilities and services within the village of Fowlmere, the proposal would fail to be in an appropriate location to comply with Policy H/11 of the Local Plan 2018. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies S/2, S/6, S/7and TI/2 of the Local Plan 2018. These policies seek to provide land for housing in sustainable locations and reduce the need to travel, particularly by car.

2-    By virtue of the presence of significant built development encroaching into the open countryside further to the south and west, beyond the established development framework, and the resultant loss of grade 2 and grade 3a agricultural land, the proposal would cause harm to the rural character and appearance of the open countryside and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, contrary to policies HQ/1, NH/2 and NH/3 of the Local Plan 2018.