Tuesday afternoon’s planning committee considered an application by the RSPCA to develop on land donated by a former Totland resident.
Mrs Albiston had bought the land, which was described as a ‘green lung’ for surrounding residents by Cllr Reg Barry, in order to stop any future development. She left it to the RSPCA to use for grazing and local wildlife.
There were many objections to the development of four detached houses, which the representative for the RSPCA stated were needed to be built in order to raise money for the local branch of the RSPCA.
“Local wildlife ignored”
Cllr John Howe argued that that the RSPCA were ignoring the well-being of the local wildlife that used the area such as grass snakes and badgers.
Three members of the public spoke for one minute each, all vehemently Three against the development which they claimed would turn Totland into one large housing development.
The site is currently a greenfield site, so the applicants needed to make a good case for developing on the land. They were unable to prove that the value of the development superseded the value of the green space to the surrounding residents. With a lack of transport and job opportunities in the area, it was argued that the development could not be considered sustainable.
Problems with surface water and flooding were raised as well as concerns raised over the risks in the highways report, which one objector claimed were under estimated.
Fudged answers
A question from Cllr Jones Evans as to whether the planning committee should bear any weight on the local Parish Plan resulted in many scratched heads.
Eventually after much paper ruffling, Bill Murphy, head of planning stated, “As ever, I’ll have to give a fudged answer.”
Cllr Hollis raised some discrepancies in the officer’s report which seemed to contradict itself. More scratching of heads and silence from the officer, Stephen Wiltshire until Bill Murphy answered by saying that the paragraphs could have been in better order.
Only two councillors voted in favour of application
The many arguments against the development seemed to be ignored by Cllr Arthur Taylor who stated he thought the applicants were entitled to maximize the use of land, and in his view, there were not sufficient reasons to refuse.
After many more questions from members of the planning committee, Cllr Fuller proposed to reject the application and this was seconded by Cllr Barry.
A vote was taken with two voting against the rejection and the remainder voting to reject.
