Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application and referred to the late correspondence received and highlighted the key considerations.  He noted there had been a number of public comments received raising highways concerns, however the highway authority had not raised any objections.  The recommendation was for approval.

Five members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.  Some of their comments included:

·         Reference to highway safety including the volume of speeding vehicles, few pavements, lack of street lighting and impact of increased traffic on the local road network.

·         Impact on the local facilities including the education, health and child services.  Local play groups and schools were already oversubscribed and therefore school places would likely to be needed to be sought outside the immediate area.

·         Horton is a rural settlement, but the proposal is urban in nature and the scale of the development is out of character with the village.

·         There is no public transport and concern of potential conflict with events at the village hall and future residents of the site.

·         Questioned the reasons for approval of the application.

·         Feeling in the village is overwhelmingly anti this proposal.  Not anti-housing but this is an estate.

One person then spoke in support of the application and explained he was the owner of the site. Some of his comments included that this seemed a natural site to provide good quality housing and that they had tried to address local concerns. 

A representative of Horton Parish Council and a representative of Broadway Parish Council both addressed the committee in objection to the application.  Some of their comments included:

·         Highways and traffic concerns especially when there are traffic issues on the A303.

·         Believed a proper speed survey should have been undertaken.

·         Understand that no traffic calming measures can be put in place due to the main road being an alternative route for traffic if Southfields is blocked, however there is no mention of this is the officers report.

·         Questioned local housing need with Broadway already having consent for 60 houses close to this application site. 

·         Both Horton and Broadway have become ‘dormitories’ for the wider area.

The Agent noted the site had been identified by the council and brought forward due to the current shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply.  Some of his other comments referred to the scale, infrastructure and education contributions and believed it to be a sustainable development in a sustainable location.

Division member Councillor Val Keitch asked for a refusal of the application as it was out of character of the local area.   Some of her other comments referred to local education being oversubscribed, pressure on health services and additional traffic due to the size of the development proposed.

The officer responded on the points raised by the public speakers and later also on points of detail and technical questions raised by members including density and scale of the scheme, traffic and highway concerns and phosphate mitigation.

During debate various opinions were raised including:

·         Concerns regarding sewage

·         No public transport

·         Size and design of development in this location.

·         Co-existence of the two villages

·         Highway safety concerns on the local roads.

·         Overdevelopment

·         Lack of five year land supply

Councillor Sue Osborne proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of design, scale and masses of development being out of keeping with the local settlement.  This was seconded by Councillor Evie Potts- Jones. 

During a short discussion another member suggested another point to add to the reason for refusal for overdevelopment.  The meeting was adjourned for a few minutes so that the members could agree their wording for the reason for refusal.

On reconvening the meeting Councillor Sue Osborne read out the grounds for refusal as follows:

‘The scale of 49 dwellings is too high for this site and location within a rural settlement.  49 new dwellings is overdevelopment in relation to the local facilities as is per SS2 and will encourage out commuting as the number of applications that have already been consented for within Horton and Broadway who do share facilities is well in excess of over 100 with more applications still in the pipeline behind this one. 

It is also felt the design particularly by the access is inappropriate for this development and out of keeping with the rest of the village design style’.

Following a short discussion and clarification from the Planning Officer and Legal representative this proposal was amended and agreed to refuse the application on the following 3 grounds:

1.     Scale of development

2.    Design

3.    Section 106 legal agreement not in place

On being put to the vote this was carried by 7 in favour of refusal, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That application 20/03277/FUL be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of Scale of development, Design and Section 106 legal agreement was not in place.

That delegated authority be granted to officers to agree the full wording of the reasons for refusal.

(voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)