This is a large development (10 separate residential units) and will have a significant impact on the community.

This application has brought a massive response for the village and is clearly of high profile and great concern. There have been a large number of objections and there were two public meetings which had standing room only.

1. The officer’s report acknowledges that no due diligence has been undertaken in respect of Policy CF1. For a development of this scale (10 separate residential units) this is surely inappropriate and should be required;
    
2. Despite many representations, there has been no real attempt to retain the golf course itself nor, indeed, are there satisfactory commitments in respect of the future of the remaining golf course land not included in the planning application.
   
   Firstly a serious attempt should be made to find a future for the golf course and, if in due course that fails, then the developer should be required to enter into a S106 Agreement in respect of the surrounding land;
    
3. The developer has made no contribution to village amenities. There are currently two fund raising projects within the village (for a church extension to provide a community hall and facilities and for refurbishment and extension of the recreational facilities) which will provide enhanced community facilities and from the occupants of the units and therefore ultimately the developer will benefit.
   
   It is a perfectly legitimate and increasingly common practice for the developers of significant developments to be required to contribute towards community facilities. Indeed it is entirely proper and correct grounds for refusal of an application if the developer refused to make a suitable contribution.
    
4. The latest plans show that the existing service road is to be retained. The developer has already ‘given way’ on the access (despite stating in a public meeting that the economic viability of the project is undermined if a new access through the village was not created) and thus there must be a suspicion over why the service road is retained on the plans.
   
   There is no reason for its retention and its permanent closure should be a mandatory requirement.