Up to 100 homes at Land Off Horseheath Road, Linton

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 100 homes, access, roads, parking, drainage, open space, landscaping and biodiversity works.

“The committee received an outline application for the development of up to 100 residential dwellings along with associated infrastructure including provision of a new site access, internal access roads, parking, drainage, public open space, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements and other associated works with all matters reserved except for the primary point of access onto Horseheath Road.”

Minutes

Earlier applications and appeal

A previous application was refused, another was approved, and a separate appeal site benefited from different housing land supply circumstances.

“The Team Leader confirmed that the distinction to be made between the appeal decision attached to the officer’s report and this application was that at the time the appeal decision was being considered the Local Planning Authority couldn’t demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and that had weighed in favour of approving that application on appeal as part of the planning balance.”

“In response to a members’ question the Delivery Manager confirmed there was an error in the site history contained in Table 3 (paragraph 4 of the officer’s report). Application S/2487/18/RM was refused (not permitted) on 10 May 2019 and reference to application S/2501/19/RM should have been included in the site history, and this application was approved in November 2019”

Minutes

Officers recommended refusal

Officers recommended refusal because required outdoor sport and sports facility contributions were not secured, risking pressure on existing infrastructure.

“The Team Leader provided the following updates since the publication of the agenda: i. Amendments to the officer’s report a. Paragraph 26.4 of the committee report provides a summary table of developer contributions that would need to be secured as part of any consent.”

“In the absence of such provision, the development would place additional pressure on existing infrastructure serving Linton, resulting in an unacceptable deterioration in the quality and capacity of these facilities.”

Minutes

Consultation and representations

The heritage consultees raised no objections, while the parish council and other objectors opposed the application.

“In response to a members’ question the Team Leader referred members to section 16 of the officer’s report which detailed the officer’s assessment of heritage assets and noted that neither the Conservation Officer nor Historic England had raised any objections to the application.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector, the applicant’s agent, a parish councillor and the local ward councillor.

Members’ main concerns

Members highlighted countryside encroachment, loss of valuable agricultural land, visual harm, weak screening and insufficient justification outside the development framework.

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. The application was outside the development framework and insufficient justification had been provided to set aside that policy. Did not believe had heard evidence to counter the other reasons for refusal and would support the officer recommendation of refusal. ii.”

“Noted the planning assessment in the officer’s report and the representations made by Linton Parish Council and did not believe the committee should go against policy and would support the officer recommendation of refusal.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously supported the officer recommendation of refusal.

“The Delivery Manager summarised the recommendation of refusal set out on p65- 66 of the agenda including the additional reason for refusal contained within the Amendment Sheet. The Delivery Manager also referred to paragraph 29.3 of the officer’s report which requested that if an appeal was lodged against the decision to refuse this application, delegated authority be given to officers to negotiate and complete the Planning Obligations required in connection with this…”

“By unanimous vote in favour of the officer recommendation of refusal, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons: i. The proposed development is located on undeveloped agricultural land outside the development framework of Linton and would introduce residential development into the open countryside in a location that is not justified by its nature or function.”

Minutes