Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for up to 4 detached dwellings. All matters reserved except access.

Location: Land West Of Doddington Lane, Stubton, NG23 5BX

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director - Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

(Councillor Penny Milnes removed herself from the Committee, due to speaking in objection to the application).

 

Proposal: Outline application for up to 4 detached dwellings. All matters reserved except access.

Location: Land West Of Doddington Lane, Stubton, NG23 5BX

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director - Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor          Councillor Penny Milnes

Stubton Parish Council           Jackie Britten-Crooks

Submitting Agent                    Nick Grace – GraceMachin Planning & Property

 

Together with:

 

·       No comment received from Ward Councillor.

·       Comments received from Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Highways.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

 

The Parish Councillor spoke and stated historically the ridge and furrow had been protected and maintained by local farmers. They emphasized the content of the Neighbourhood Plan and landscape assessment referring to NE2.

 

The Ward Councillor stated that Stubton was a small village. The site was distinguished as being a non-designated heritage asset being an excellent example of ridge and furrow listed in the Lincolnshire historic environment record. An aerial photograph provided by the speaker illustrated the existing ridge and furrow.

 

The speaker stated that Stubton Neighbourhood plan and landscape character assessment indicated the importance of ridge and furrow to the setting of the village and importance of retaining a high quality environment.

They also stated that the ridge and furrow was undisturbed pasture with improved soil quality and water management on heavy clay. They stated the biodiversity of the site is unique.

 

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

 

·       Whether Stubton had a wide range of amenities for the amount of residents who live there.

 

The Ward Councillor confirmed Stubton was classed as a small village due to having a small village hall.

 

·       Clarification was sought around local support; however, the report did not outline any evidence of local support.

 

The submitting agent clarified that the report included ‘9 letters of comment’ submitted within the application, with 7 in favour and none against the application.

 

·       Whether the Applicant had considered other areas for this development wouldn’t affect a non-designated site and heritage. 

 

It was confirmed that no other sites had been explored as this was the only site purchased by the landowner within the village.

 

In relation to heritage, Stubton had several large areas of ridge and furrow. The decision making needed to be based upon the need to supply housing balanced against the harm of the small area of ridge and furrow among larger areas around Stubton.

 

·       Biodiversity net gain was discussed from the proposal. It was noted that the site currently had ancient meadows which were some of the most biodiverse in the country. Clarification was sought how the removal of ancient meadows would increase biodiversity.

 

The submitting agent had worked with an ecologist and a PEA (Preliminary Ecological Proposal) had been undertaken and a biodiversity metric had been prepared based upon an index profession study of the site. There would also be a 16.67% improvement of hedgerows.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed the agricultural field was a non-designated heritage asset and did not have any statutory protection.

 

·       Clarification was sought that if this application was not passed, whether the owner of the land would be entitled to deep plough the land.

 

There was no control over what the owner to the land wished to do with the land, if this application was refused.

 

A comment within the report stated that ‘there had been no pe-application community consultation exercise carried out and it was therefore not clearly evidenced that there was substantial support from the local community project’.

 

The submitting agent highlighted that a planning strategy was established for this site. The Applicant’ felt the best way for them to engage with the local community was through the Parish Council.

 

The Development Management Planner clarified that in terms of policy SP4 and community support, there had been no prior community consultation exercise submitted. Within the representations section of the report, there were 7 letters of support and 2 neutral letters.

 

Officers had assessed this information but limited weight could be given to the community support criteria of Policy SP4 due to the 5 year housing land supply shortage.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether the Applicant’s identified work to deliver the biodiversity net gain would create more ecofriendly environment than currently.

 

It was confirmed the application would provide a positive biodiversity improvement over the existing level. 

 

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

 

·       Clarification was sought around the proposed site and boundary of the ridge and furrow area alongside proposed hedging.

 

It was clarified a further survey take place at reserved matters stage to provide further details on landscaping details and biodiversity net gain.

 

Condition 6 specifically dealt with a biodiversity mitigation and enhancement plan to be submitted as part of the layout and landscaping reserve matters and should be informed by a new primarily ecological appraisal.

 

The statutory biodiversity net gain condition also required a minimum 10% net gain over a 30-year period. The condition established a baseline value and distinguished between habitat, hedgerow and watercourse units. The baseline survey on the existing site recognised the existing hedgerow was a high distinctive habitat or hedgerow unit which had to be uplifted by 10% or greater if a hedgerow needed to be removed.

 

It was proposed, seconded to authorise the Assistant Director - Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

 

·       It was noted that if the application be approved, only a small proportion of the ridge and furrow would be protected.

·       Members commented on the lack of public consultation and community support.

·       Concern was raised on the rural nature of the application. 

·       A query was raised on plans for flood prevention and surface water.

 

The Development Management Planner highlighted the application was in flood zone one, therefore, not a major concern for flood risk of surface water. A condition had been drafted for drainage details to be submitted.

 

·       One Member noted that ridge and furrow sites were a form of medieval drainage management.

·       The loss of existing mature hedgerow and soil was raised, it was felt it was not easy to replace a hedgerow and soil.

 

The proposal to approve the application fell.

 

·       A query was raised on what weight should be given to the tilted balance of the housing supply, due to the application proposed being within a smaller village.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth informed that the weight given to an application was a matter for the Committee, as decision makers.

 

·       Members reiterated the application was a significant heritage harm, however, recognised the land was a non-designated heritage asset.

·       The Committee discussed landscape and impact on the character of the area.

·       It was questioned whether the protection of ridge and furrow was stated within the neighbourhood plan.

 

The neighbourhood plan did not have a specific policy reference to the protection of ridge and furrow, however, supporting text within landscape character mentioned that ridge and furrow was a distinctive feature of landscape character.

 

Final Decision:

 

It was proposed, seconded and REFUSE the application for the following reason:

 

The application proposals would result in the total loss of an area of ridge and furrow, which is defined as a non-designated heritage asset and is recognised as a key character of the rural landscape character identified in the made Stubton Neighbourhood Plan. As a result, the application proposals would result in substantial harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset and the public benefits of the scheme, including the provision of housing, which is identified as a significant benefit, would not outweigh the identified harm, due to the limited weight attributed to the provision of 4 dwellings. As such, the application proposals are contrary to Policy EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 (Adopted January 2020), Policy nE2 of the Stubton Neighbourhood Plan and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The development proposed would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, and material considerations are insufficient to indicate that the decision should be otherwise than in accordance with it, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework. 

 

(The Committee had a 20 minute adjournment).