Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery, (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that the number of letters of objection received was 165 and one letter of representation, not as detailed in paragraph 7.4.1 of the report.

Following the Officers’ presentation, an objector (Mr Entwhistle), a representative of Latchingdon Parish Council (Councillor Dienn) and the Applicant (Ms Adams) addressed the Committee.

Councillor M E Thompson apologised for joining the meeting late and advised she would not take part in the debate or vote on this item of business as she had missed some of the Officer presentation.

During the lengthy debate that ensued a number of concerns were raised by Members regarding the proposed development.  These related to the proposal being outside of the settlement boundary, access from the north of the site onto a 60mph road, the impact on traffic through Latchingdon, sustainability of the site and how the infrastructure of Latchingdon would cope with the proposed development.  In response, the Head of Development Management (HoDM) drew attention to relevant consultee responses supporting infrastructure provision and maintenance through the Section 106 legal agreement and planning conditions.  In response to a comment that the HELAA (Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment) facilitated a housing development on the land, if was clarified that the HELAA did not encourage proposals on land.  The HELAA was a required process in the review of the Local Plan and through the call for sites landowners were encouraged to submit their land for consideration of allocation in any forthcoming plan.  It was not a part of the Local Plan and had no status as a material consideration of the merits of a planning application.  It was highlighted that if a developer submitted an application on the basis of a comment in the HELAA, they did so at their own risk.

Councillor A S Fluker advised that the proposal was not within the settlement boundary of Latchingdon and how the Local Development Plan (LDP) directed in such cases development should be confined to ‘urban areas’.  Councillor Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendations, as the proposal did not represent sustainable development and the adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits of the scheme contrary to policies S1, S8, D1 and H4 of the LDP and National Planning Policy Framework.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to questions regarding delivery of specific parts of the scheme, the HoDM explained that being an outline application the only matters for consideration were the access and he could not therefore advise on the delivery of other parts of the scheme as these would be submitted under future reserved matters applications.

Further debate ensued and in light of the proposal from Councillor Fluker other possible reasons for refusal were raised and discussed.  In response to a question regarding access from the north of the site, the HoDM highlighted the comments from Essex County Council Highways and advised that if Members were minded to refuse the application contrary to the statutory consultee they would need robust reasons for refusal and to avoid costs, particularly as the suggestion was contrary to the views of the Highways Authority for the district, they would need to consider commissioning external consultants to support the suggested reason for refusal.

Following a request from the Chairperson, Councillor Fluker repeated his earlier proposal of refusal at this point advising he was happy to include Policy S2, highlighting that the development was not within a settlement boundary and should be directed towards an urban area.

The Chairman then put the recommendation for refusal, in the name of Councillor Fluker, to the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED subject to reasons delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairperson.