Council and councillors

A question without notice was received from Amanda Bowles, a summary of which is below:

It is common ground that the proposed development conflicts with the Rutland CSDPD (CS4) and SAPDPD (SP5).  Since the CSDPD and SADPD are both written in accordance with the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and in 2014 the planning inspector for the SADPD concluded that the exclusion of Harrier Close from the PLD was appropriate in line with the sustainability objectives in the plan, what are the material considerations that mean that the Council should ignore its plan, and the planning inspector, and approve the development?

The Principal Planning Officer responded that the material considerations were set out on pages 20 and 21 of the report.  Officers needed to consider any harm that would be caused by the development and whether this would give rise to any potential reason for refusal.  It was not considered that the development was in open countryside in the normal sense and was to be undertaken on infill plots in an existing development.  The NPPF is a material consideration in itself.  It was considered that in the current political climate, the application was likely to be allowed if appealed. There had been no highways, flooding or residential amenity issues identified.  Since an appeal at a similar site in Greetham earlier this year, it was clear that policy had moved on since the previous appeal on this site in 2007.

A deputation was received from Sara Atkin on behalf of residents of Harrier Close, the content of which is included below:

The residents of Harrier Close ask for your support in our objection to this proposal.  Planning has already been refused several times and this proposal contravenes many County and Village planning policies.

In 2007 an appeal to build 12 houses was dismissed.  In 2012 all 7 sites were rejected and excluded from the Site Allocations and Policies DPD due to ‘not being in or adjacent to the PLD’ and therefore contrary to Core Strategy.

In the Planning Inspectorate Report to RCC in August 2014, Peter Willow states: “While I accept that the area cannot be properly regarded as countryside, its exclusion from the PLD is appropriate, in line with the sustainability objectives of the Plan”.

This is why the sites are not included in the Site Allocations and Policies DPD – Preferred Options or the Emerging Neighbourhood plan.  The Neighbourhood Plan is rightly recognised as a material consideration in the assessment but has been given little weight.  Given that it is inline on these points with RCC policy it is surely premature to consider this application with a referendum likely to happen soon.  This is particularly strange given that the assessment seems to be giving weight to a Government statement about the future direction of planning which at this stage has absolutely no policy content.

In addition, the inspector’s report in Mach 2015 regarding Greetham garden centre concluded that there is a 5 year supply of housing land in Rutland and policies remain up-to-date.  The Greetham site development has now been approved but it should be noted that the circumstances are entirely different to Harrier Close.  The Greetham site directly adjoins the PLD and the land is brownfield.

It is our understanding that each planning application should be dealt with on its own merits and a single inspector’s decision on a site in another village with very different circumstances should not be given the weight that it seems to have been in this assessment.

Harrier Close is located over 800m form the centre of the village.  Public transport is minimal and this makes any development unsustainable.  Kendrew barracks and Harrier Close should not be referred to as an enclave.  We are separated by a high security fence.  Kendrew barracks is self-sufficient and residents enjoy many facilities that are not accessible to Harrier Close residents.

When we purchased our properties 8 years ago we were aware that there could be future development of 12 houses not the proposed 22 homes which would increase housing density by over 50%.  12 properties are far more appropriate to preserve our environment.  In addition the recreational space offered is wholly inadequate.  Indeed, this pace is as small as that offered in the 2007 plans which the planning inspectorate deemed to be unacceptable for 52 houses.  I am therefore confused as to how this small recreational space can be adequate for 62.

We do not feel that the exceptional release of this land for development can in any way be justified.

In their application Abbey homes state: “It is believed that the proposed scheme can improve the quality of the residents’ environment for both new and existing residents alike”. 

We refute this statement.  We moved here to live in a village environment that is appropriately populated and do not wish to become yet another overcrowded urban-style development.  We therefore ask you for your support in objecting to this unsuitable and unsustainable planning application. 

RESOLVED

2015/0272/FUL That contrary to the recommendations set out within Report No. 157/2015 and reasons contained therein, that this application be REFUSED on the following grounds:

1.    Contrary to Development Plan as in countryside outside the PLD and not sustainable due to isolation from the main part of the village.