Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for the phased development of up to 3 serviced plots for self-build/custom house building (all matters reserved apart from access)

Location: Land between no.9 and no.21 Main Road, Uffington PE9 4SN

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission

It was AGREED to extend the meeting until 18.00

The meeting adjourned at 16.52 and resumed at 17.01.

Proposal: Outline application for the phased development of up to 3 serviced plots for self-build/custom house building (all matters reserved apart from access)

Location: Land between no.9 and no.21 Main Road, Uffington PE9 4SN

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011 – 2036, Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from The Gardens Trust.

·       Comments received from Uffington Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS).

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       The written sentiments from the District Councillor and Parish Council favoured the proposals, citing the land was currently underutilised and the proposals complied with the local policy on both infill and edge-of-development.

-       They argued the proposals were in keeping with the character of the village and wouldn’t compromise the conservation area.

-       The applicant argued the proposals were SP4 compliant and reminded Members of the tilted balance given that SKDC could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

-       No statutory consultees had objected to the proposals.

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

-       It was confirmed that Mill Mount could still be accessed via the public footpath which had previously been diverted.

-       Tree maintenance would be the responsibility of the homeowners.

-       It was confirmed that the adjacent farmhouse would be the nearest listed building.

-       Members queried whether design consideration had been given to the building heights. The applicant confirmed that six different design options were submitted during the pre-application and this was the preferred one.

-       Members were reminded of the definition of open countryside.

-       It was confirmed that the materials used and design choice of individual plots would be the decision of the individual plot buyers.

-       Clarification was sought about the waste collection provisions. The applicant confirmed that a traffic survey had been undertaken, demonstrating that the bin lorry could access the site. 

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

-       The Planning Officer confirmed that the site was not considered to meet the planning definition of open countryside given its proximity to the village and the conservation area.

-       A Member suggested additional weight should be given to favourable consideration given the shortage of self-build properties. The Planning Officer noted there were currently 222 self-build properties registered within South Kesteven.

-       It was confirmed that lorries could use the roads if they were not adopted by Lincolnshire Country Council.

-       Members were reminded that it was not a material planning consideration to account for the views of local residents.

-       The sensitivity of the site as identified by the Conservation Officer was highlighted.

-       Members were reminded that they needed to be consistent in their approach to decision-making. Whilst matters of planning judgement were a balancing act and can be weighted differently, there is a requirement to be consistent in the way in which similar issues are balanced.

-       A member who visited the site noted its current natural appearance and soft appearance of the trees in the boundary setting which reflected the rural setting of the listed building and parkland opposite. There was a concern raised, in response to a comment by a speaker, that if the site were to be developed that the natural tree line would be cut right back impacting on the setting to create a boundary more in keeping with a residential setting.

-       In summing up a concern was also raised regarding the height of the tallest proposed new build.

Final decision

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

1               The proposed dwellings would not be located within a substantially built up frontage, nor the main built up part of the settlement. The dwellings would be on the edge of the settlement and would result in harm to the character of the area as it is considered that the site would extend obtrusively into the open countryside, and would extend the pattern of development to the north of the village into open countryside, in a form of development that is not typical for the character or layout of the village, contrary to Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan. The public benefits in this case, including the provision of self-build dwellings, which are a significant benefit, would not outweigh the identified harm.

2               The site is identified within the Uffington Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan as an important area of open space that forms part of the setting to the farm and also contributes towards an attractive entrance to the conservation area. The site is located on the edge of the settlement, within the Conservation Area and within the Kesteven Uplands Character Area. The development would encroach into open countryside and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the conservation area, the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building, West Hall Farm. The public benefits in this case, including the provision of self-build dwellings, which are a significant benefit, would not outweigh the identified harm. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policy EN6 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.