Agenda item

There are three Appendices attached to the online version of the agenda.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

1.    Insufficient evidence of need

2.    Harm to the Landscape that is not outweighed by the personal circumstances of the applicants

3.    The application failed to make provision for infrastructure through Section 106 contributions

Rick Bristow (objector) and Frank Morris (Cottenham Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members were asked to consider what had changed during the past three years to justify the application for three further plots – the need for accommodation, the same as in 2011, had already been met.  Members also heard concern about the access for emergency vehicles.  A written statement from Councillor Simon Edwards (a local Member) stated as follows:

“This is a complex site, with a complex history. However, the fundamental strategy for this site remains unchanged, and that is the intention to provide a pleasant and manageable location for a modest traveller site, comprising of two distinct areas of authorised development, namely the area along Setchell Drove, and the separate area at Water Lane.

These two areas were always intended to be separated by an area of clear open countryside, I.e. 'Green Separation', and the council has in the past gone to great lengths to clear the unauthorised development at Victoria View and Pine View which were contrary to this strategy.

This application should therefore be viewed in light of this strategy and it is clear that approval would be contrary to our overall approach for the site.

I am in complete agreement with the lengthy submission of Mr. Rick Bristow, and I urge members to read this document carefully, as I do not intend to repeat any of the points made as he has made them perfectly clearly.  They are all valid, relevant, and worthy of being given significant weight in determining this application.

The one area where my opinion differs from Mr. Bristow's, is that I urge the committee to refuse this application outright,  rather than give a partial approval/refusal, as I do not consider the applicant has demonstrated sufficient need to live in this particular location, and therefore the weight the committee should attach to this is far outweighed by the harm the application does to the overall intention of maintaining the green separation between the two approved areas.

This is, after all, a site in the open countryside, outside the village framework, and in the flood plain. Any approval should only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances, supported by clear evidence.  I do not consider the case has been made in this instance.

In any case, I am unsure if the committee are at liberty to give a partial approval/refusal, and therefore it should be for an inspector to judge if plots 4 and 5 could be granted consent, for the reasons Mr. Bristow has set out’”

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

1.    Insufficient evidence of need

2.    Harm to the Landscape that is not outweighed by the personal circumstances of the applicants

3.    The application failed to make provision for infrastructure through Section 106 contributions.

Councillor  Deborah Roberts withdrew to the public gallery, did not contribute to the debate about this application and did not vote.