Proposed erection of three dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of three dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure at land.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

(The committee update received following the publication of the agenda simply stated that “two photographs had been received from the detached property to north of site, providing southward views towards the application site and commenting on the lack of screening”.  The officer comments in response were: “This relationship was referred to at the site inspection. It is considered that there is sufficient distance between this property and unit 3 so as to safeguard residential amenity”.)

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Meldrum, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr J Hicks, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was of great historical significance and importance and should be preserved.

·        The proposal would be detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity of the application site.

·        Previous applications for planning permission to develop the site for housing had been refused and an appeal against refusal had been lost.

·        The current application was an improvement on previous proposals.  However he considered the design was still unsatisfactory for the setting.  The provision of one high quality dwelling would represent a better proposal.

·        The proposal that living accommodation would be on the first floor could be intrusive to neighbouring properties.

·        The site was a dell, attracting water and wildlife.

·        The entrance to the site was narrow and increased traffic would damage neighbouring properties.

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal and in a parish poll 80% had opposed development of Lustonbury.

·        There were 15 houses for sale in the area so it did not appear that there was a need for additional houses.

·        The economic benefit of the development identified at paragraph 6.14 of the report would be modest and short-lived.

·        Pedestrian access to the village centre would be by the road.  This was not satisfactory.

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

·        The applicant’s agent had suggested that the proposed design overcame the objections to previous applications.  However, a number of Members considered that this was not the case.  A contrary view was expressed by other Members that the design was satisfactory.

·        The proposal met most of the criteria in policy RA2, although it could be questioned whether there was a local demand for housing.

·        The implication of the Inspector’s recent decision on the Council’s five year housing land supply was noted.  However, the position on the housing land supply was fluid and it was arguable that the application failed the test in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        The site had considerable historic value and importance. 

·        The listed buildings and their setting should be preserved.

·        The site had conservation value with a range of species present on the site.  The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had initially objected to the proposal.

·        It was questioned whether the applicant had consulted appropriately with the local community. 

·        The exceptional nature of the site meant that it should be treated with the greatest care and sensitivity.

·        It was possible that an application for a single well designed house would be acceptable.

·        The Parish Council was opposed to the proposal.

·        The responses of both Historic England and Natural England were disappointing, appearing to have been written as a desk-top exercise.  An observation was made, however, that Historic England’s comment on the proposal could be viewed as not positive.

·        The access was off a busy road at a dangerous point.  A pavement to the village would be required if the development were to proceed.

·        The listed buildings were only grade 2 listed.

·        The development of brownfield sites was encouraged.

·        A Member requested that if the development proceeded the dwellings should be required to have bat slates.

·        As a point of principle Members needed to be provided with more detail on proposed drainage plans for developments.

·        In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer provided clarification on the footprint of the buildings, their dimensions and positioning within the site.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He again emphasised the historic importance of the site and the responsibility to preserve such locations.

The Development Manager commented that the acceptability of the design and its impact on the setting of the listed buildings was a subjective matter upon which the Committee was entitled to take a different view to that in the report informed by the site visit.  The report to the Committee outlined the historic significance of the setting of the conservation area and the listed buildings within it but concluded that the development could be accommodated satisfactorily and that policies within the Core Strategy would support development.  He cautioned that, in weighing the merits of the application, policy did not require exceptional design or prescribe a duty to enhance.  The duty was to preserve or enhance.

A number of grounds for refusal were advanced.  These included policy LD4 – Historic environment and heritage assets, policy SS1 – presumption in favour of sustainable development, the adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents of overlooking as a consequence of the proposed first floor living accommodation and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication, based on the Committee’s view that the application should be refused because it was contrary to policies which included LD4 – Historic environment and heritage assets, and SS1 - presumption in favour of sustainable development, the adverse impact on the amenity of existing residents of overlooking as a consequence of the proposed first floor living accommodation and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.