Issue - meetings

To consider application UTT/20/1208/PIP.

The Senior Planning Officer said that the application was one for permission in principle for residential development comprising the erection of a maximum of five dwellings.

An indicative block plan had detailed how up to five dwellings with associated garaging and shared private access drive heading off the Street could be accommodated. There had also been a suggested footpath link leading from the rear of the site that finished at the Lodge Coaches depot site (applicant) that fronted onto The Street. This footpath would cross land in the control of the applicant.

He said that the application was a call-in request from Councillor Barker and was recommended for refusal.

Six public speakers addressed the Committee.

Three residents argued that the report recommendation should be upheld for the reasons stated by officers. It was said that any consideration of the future business interests of the applicant should be kept separate from the application, that this was not a special case and that there were road safety, sustainable travel and accessibility concerns.

Councillor Reeve spoke on behalf of High Easter Parish Council. He said that the Chairman of the Parish Council was the applicant and the Vice-Chairman was the agent. He said that he had chaired an extraordinary remote meeting of the Parish Council at which only three of seven Councillors had no relevant interest. That meeting had been attended by 42 residents. Councillor Reeve said that the meeting had concluded that it could neither support nor object to the application and as a result had submitted a summary of those points raised by residents, and additional points noted by the Parish Council during the meeting.

The applicant summarised the history of his family’s relationship with the village of High Easter and the problems incurred by the Lodge Coaches business during the pandemic.

The agent referred to the Council being unable to demonstrate a five year land supply and that therefore policies that were outdated had very little weight. He said that the application was for five dwellings, one of which could possibly be designated as affordable housing.

As previously agreed Councillor Reeve recused himself from the meeting at this point (12.44 pm) and took no part in the discussion.

Councillor LeCount raised a question as to who owned the land towards the main road and also whether the size of the site was 4.8 ha or 5.1 ha.

Councillor Light said that the land ownership issue was important but she saw no reason for the development and was sympathetic towards the views expressed by the residents. She proposed to uphold the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor Pavitt seconded the motion.

RESOLVED to uphold the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

R Beer, V Lockie, C Lockie, Councillor N Reeve, R Lodge and P Sutton spoke on the application.

Councillor Reeve re-joined the meeting at 12.52 pm.

The Committee adjourned at 12.52 pm for a lunch break and reconvened at 2.00 pm.