Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for a residential development with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Land West of The Charters, Greatford Road, Uffington

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to:

·       Undertake a formal statutory consultation advertising the recommendation to approve planning permission as a departure from the development plan; and

·       In the event that the formal consultation does not raise any material planning considerations that have not previously been assessed as part of the current process, to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

 

Prior to the commencement of the application, the Chairman disclosed the following statement:

 

“It has been brought to my attention that an agent here today was previously employed by the council as a planning officer and may be known to some members. All members have been trained and will determine the applications before them today in line with that training. Any member who feels differently should make a declaration accordingly.”

 

Councillor Mark Whittington left the Chamber.

 

Proposal: Outline application for a residential development with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Land West of The Charters, Greatford Road, Uffington

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to:

·       Undertake a formal statutory consultation advertising the recommendation to approve planning permission as a departure from the development plan; and

·       In the event that the formal consultation does not raise any material planning considerations that have not previously been assessed as part of the current process, to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor -	Vanessa Smith (Written Statement)
Against -	Alan Richardson, Mark Lewis, Sarah Woolf
Applicant’s Agent -	Mike Sibthorpe

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011 – 2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water Services.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer (SKDC).

·       No comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council – Minerals and Waste.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council -  Highways & SuDS.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       Comments received from The Gardens Trust.

·       Comments received from Tree Officer (SKDC).

·       Comments received from Uffington Parish Council.

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       Planning permission on the site had previously been refused in 1994 on the grounds of highways safety. Since then, the level of traffic had increased.

-       The proposals would be a departure from the Local Development Plan.

-       The proposals would be to the detriment of the conservation area and this detriment was not outweighed by the increased housing supply.

-       There was no evidence that the proposals met a local need.

-       A series of trees on the site had recently been removed unlawfully and had caused a reduction in bats seen in the area.

-       There would be a loss of privacy for existing properties.

-       Some speakers questioned the extent of the ecological analysis.

-       The agent believed the proposals could be suitably integrated to tackle the housing land supply shortfall in line with the titled balance.

-       The agent also argued that the proposals would not detract from the local setting.

 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

-       It was queried when The Charters was built. The speaker explained that The Charters was built in 1994 and was initially within the conservation area.

-       The agent was queried why the trees on site had been removed unlawfully. The agent confirmed they had been removed at the request of the electricity board as the trees were interfering with the electricity pylons. However, the applicant would be willing to replace them.

-       It was queried and confirmed that there was regular public transport from Stamford and the Deepings.

-       It was confirmed that the existing access point from the village hall would require widening.

-       It was confirmed there would be both road and pavement access to all properties within the development.

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

-       Clarification was sought about the safety implications given the highways concerns resulting in the 1994 refusal. It was confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework was updated in 2011, changing Highways approach to safety analysis.

-       It was confirmed that the unlawfully removed trees would be replaced under enforcement powers or via condition on the planning application.

-       The Planning Officer confirmed that there had been a preliminary ecological appraisal in which biodiversity net gain (BNG) metric was used as a basis for the ecological analysis and, if approved, the BNG baseline would be calculated as if the removed trees were still present. A further ecological analysis survey would be conducted at the reserve matters stage.

-       Some Members noted concern about the impact of the village hall on access to some of the site.

-       It was confirmed that the suitability of the road and access points for emergency vehicles would be controlled within the building regulations.

-       It was suggested that small growth of the village would benefit local amenities.

-       Some Members noted that they were more comfortable with the southern side of the site than the northern side which was more imposing on the conservation area. Some Members were concerned about the precedent of incremental diminishing of the conservation area.

-       A Member expressed that they did not believe there was substantial gain from the proposals and noted concern about increased traffic, local opposition, and conflicts within SP4.

-       Members were concerned about the indicative layout of the proposals and urged the applicant to reconsider should the application be approved. The Planning Officer reminded Members that the layout was indicative to demonstrate the principle that the site could facilitate six dwellings.

-       It was believed that no protected species were impacted by the proposals.

 

It was AGREED to extend the meeting until 17.00.

 

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, including the additional recommendations published within the Additional Information Report. However, this proposal fell when voted on by the committee.

 

-       Following the unsuccessful proposal, Members noted their primary concerns with the application as being the impact on the conservation area, the impact on the heritage, character and setting of the area, the disproportionate size compared to the village, and the local opposition.

-       It was noted from the plan showing the size of trees to remain on the lower site, that it was possible to determine that had the row of trees not been removed without the consent of SKDC Tree Officers, it would not be possible for the houses proposed in the indicative plan, adjacent to the boundary, to be built. There would be inadequate space for the layout proposed.

 

The meeting adjourned at 15.10 and resumed at 15.29.

 

-       Given the concerns noted by Members of the committee, the Planning Officer advised Members that the impact of the development on the conservation area was a matter which could be supported by the comments received from the Conservation Officer, whilst noting the committees concerns about the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

 

Final decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Uffington Conservation Area by virtue of the removal of the traditional, narrow, long plot form to the rear of Main Street, that would not be outweighed by the public benefits associated with the erection of 6 dwellings, which is recognised as a significant benefit. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, would not outweigh the identified harm. 
2. The proposed development would, as a matter of principle, result in the incongruous extension of residential development into the open countryside contrary to the prevailing urban morphology of Uffington resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the village. The proposed harm would be contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the public benefits associated with the erection of 6 dwellings, would not outweigh the identified harm. 

The resolution also included a delegation to the Assistant Director for Planning and Growth to make minor changes to the wording of the refusal resolution.

 

RECORDED – Councillor Paul Wood voted against the resolution.