Approval for 95 homes on farmland agreed on appeal

The public inquiry over the refusal of the development scheduled for several days ran for three hours only after the council decided not to provide counter evidence

A housing development of 95 homes has been approved following a council's U-turn on its decision to object.

In January, Peterborough City Council planners rejected the Larkfleet Group's application to build on fields on the southern edge of Glinton, Cambridgeshire.

City council planners accepted local objections and had argued the development would result in "significant harm to the character and appearance of the area".

But days before a public inquiry into the decision was due to start, the council was unable to demonstrate plans for a five-year housing supply, meaning its most important policies for determining the appeal were "out of date".

Both parties agreed planning permission should be granted and the council would not raise any evidence against the appeal at the inquiry.

An appeal lodged by Larkfleet Group and a public inquiry took place on Tuesday at Sand Martin House in Peterborough and concluded within three hours.

In the past, three applications for the site have been refused by the authority.

The latest set of proposals, which were submitted in September 2024, were opposed by parish councillors who argued other brownfield sites were available within Peterborough.

The development will be across two fields, separated by a track that provides private access to Clare Lodge from Lincoln Road

The Larkfleet Group's plans said 30% of new homes would be affordable and there would be 4.16 hectares of open space, a play area and allotments.

Peter Goatley KC, representing Larkfleet Group, told the inquiry that all three reasons for refusal put forward by the council had "fallen away" and that the council "accepts there is no reason why planning permission should not be granted".

He added: "The council cannot meet their five-year housing allowance by requirement. Indeed, they're significantly short of that threshold, 3.42 years to be precise."

Clare Parry, representing Peterborough City Council, said there were "a number of changes in circumstances" since the initial refusal, including a review of the authority's five-year housing supply.

"The planning authority considers that, on the evidence currently available, it can demonstrate a supply of 4.88 years."

Despite disagreeing on the housing supply figure, both parties agreed that, under either scenario, planning permission should be granted.

Vice chairman of Glinton Parish Council, Bob Randall, told the inquiry that Glinton was "not a NIMBY village" and claimed a village survey showed that a majority of residents supported "limited growth".

A number of planning conditions and S106 obligations were agreed on by both parties during the inquiry, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.