Full planning application for a pair of semi detached two storey three bed dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Full planning application for a pair of semi-detached two storey three bed dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping.)

The Development Manager (DM) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He drew the Committee’s attention to the submission of two videos, in addition to the written submission included in the update, showing the brook by the application site in flood with standing water on parts of the site.  He added that the comments of the drainage consultant had been omitted from the report but were summarised in the update.  The consultant had no objections subject to conditions.  The site was not in a flood risk zone.  Policy LD4 had been omitted from the list of policies at paragraph 2.1 of the report but the policy implications were fully considered within the appraisal.  A correction was required to paragraph 6.49 of the report in that the restrictive policies in footnote 9 of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework were applicable given the setting of the listed asset. This meant that the tilted balance in favour of development did not strictly apply.  It was within the Committee’s remit to give weight to the harm caused by the proposal balancing that against any public benefits of the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking there was provision for Aston Ingham Parish Council to speak on the proposal.  As no member of the Parish Council was able to attend the meeting, a statement, which had previously been circulated to members of the Committee, was read out on their behalf by the local ward member.  The Parish Council opposed the scheme.  Mr P Tufnell, a consultant acting on behalf of a number of local residents spoke in objection to the application.  Miss J Wormald, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer, spoke on the application.

He commented that Aston Ingham was a beautiful village. The application should be refused because the application site was adjacent to the church and detrimental to this heritage asset. In addition the site was situated in a crook between a pond and a stream.  Video evidence had been supplied of the site being flooded. 

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        It was noted that Historic England had no objection to the proposal but the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings Officer) (CMHBO) did object.

The DM commented that there was a difference of opinion as to the significance of the harm the development would cause.  He reiterated that in conducting the planning balance the Committee needed to weigh the harm against the scheme’s benefits.

·        Several members expressed the view that the development would be detrimental to the village.  The CMHBO had provided a thorough assessment of the proposal in his response.  Their conclusion was that the harm to heritage assets did outweigh any benefits of the scheme and the application should be refused.

·        A contrary view was that Heritage England had no objection and the site would provide much needed housing.

·        Concerns were expressed about the risk of flooding, and disposal of foul sewage through package treatment plants, including a request for clarity about their maintenance.

The DM commented that the drainage consultant had no objection subject to the conditions which included reference to agreeing a maintenance regime.  In terms of the application of a sequential test, the site was in flood zone 1 and at the lowest risk of flooding according to the Environment Agency’s assessment.  He therefore cautioned against giving weight to this aspect.

·        The undeveloped site had a natural beauty that should be preserved.

·        It was suggested that the progress being made in achieving the indicative minimum housing growth target in the parish itself was reasonable.  The failure to achieve a five year housing land supply for the county as a whole was attributable to the lack of progress in developing the strategic housing sites.  This overall shortfall should not mean that unsuitable development in smaller areas of the county such as Aston Ingham should be permitted.

·        The DM clarified that without a cross-section it was difficult to assess the slab levels but on the evidence available there would be a differential of between 340-820 mm in the height of the floor level above existing ground levels.

·        The Lead Development Manager added that the Committee had to weigh their concern about the impact on the heritage asset against the shortage of housing.  An Inspector would base their assessment of an appeal on the fact that the council did not have a five year housing land supply.  The council had previously sought to advance the argument that housing provision in a particular area was on track to meet the need identified in the Core Strategy for 2031 but legal advice was that sub-division of the county in calculating the housing land supply was not permissible.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the Parish had not been resistant to housing development.  There were other sites in the village where development would be preferable. The current proposal would cause harm.

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor Guthrie’s seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it would cause significant harm to a heritage asset and fundamentally change the character of an area and was therefore contrary to policies LD1, LD4 and SS6 of the Core Strategy.  The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, 1 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policies LD1, LD4, and SS6 and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to detail these reasons.