Proposed development of two dwellings.

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

(Proposed development of two dwellings.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms S Parkinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There was a high level of objection from local people who believed the development would have a negative impact on the character of the settlement, that it was unacceptable in form, design, scale and location and that it would have a severe impact on the local road network, particularly in the light of the application for a single dwelling close by potentially meaning a cumulative increase of three dwellings.

·        For many years Welsh Newton Common had seen minimal growth.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) noted that the common  ‘is characterised as a place of beauty and unspoiled nature with a feeling of remoteness and tranquillity reminiscent of days gone by’.   Many of the objectors believed that the development for two dwellings would change that character forever and set a precedent.

·        The parish as a whole had met the minimum housing target.  Whilst it was recognised that Welsh Newton Common was a settlement considered to be appropriate for proportionate growth in policy RA 2 of the Core Strategy the objectors considered that the proposal did not meet the criteria within that policy  Given that the minimum housing numbers had already been exceeded in the parish, there was no reason for these policies not to carry full weight in the planning balance.

·        The NDP expressed a clear preference for smaller scale, organic growth with 2/3 bed houses and high levels of sustainability wherever possible and that ridge heights should not exceed 6m.  The proposal was in conflict with that policy.

·        Objectors considered the design was not in keeping with the ‘grain’ of the village and would not make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and its landscape setting as required in policy RA2.

·        Many objectors questioned whether Welsh Newton Common  should be a RA2 settlement. The post office and shop had recently closed.  There were now no services on the common.  The bus ran once a week.  Broadband was slow. 

·        The access was via a single track road. This was contrary to Policy MT1 which required that there should be genuine choice as regards movement. Residents had to reverse up sometimes 20 or 40 metres to avoid oncoming traffic.  The nature of the lane made it hard to see pedestrians, horse riders or cyclists and a number of letters raised the fear that the congestion would increase to a dangerous extent if this proposal were permitted.  Further concern related to the cumulative effect in conjunction with the related application for a single dwelling which one objector stated would push it beyond breaking point.  A report had been submitted on behalf of the residents making the case for the impact being ‘severe’ and in contravention of paragraph 109 of the NPPF and Core strategy MT1 in that regard, by reason of the narrowness, lack of passing places and constraints to forward visibility.  She had also been told that, in the past, the nature of the road has been given by the local authority as a reason for refusing planning permission on other sites.  Although those decisions were many years ago the road had not changed – if anything it had got worse with the increased levels or car ownership in the village.

·        To gain access it would be necessary to cross the common which was identified as a green space in the NDP and accorded a degree of protection.  Furthermore the NDP stipulated that new housing should be accessed directly from a made up road and the application site was not directly accessed from the metalled road surface.

·        The NDP placed a strong emphasis on protecting and enhancing the high environmental value of the area and the European protected species to be found on the common – particularly Dormice and Great Crested Newts.

·        Objectors had raised concern about the potential impact on the habitat and the need to mitigate these impacts successfully.  Indeed the benchmark was not simply to do no harm but to arrive at a net environmental benefit/gain.  It was important in this context to ensure that the hedgerows were not cut back or cut down and that any new hedgerow planting was successful as a mitigation for hedgerow loss. 

·        In conclusion the application was strongly resisted by local residents who felt that the qualities that made Welsh Newton Common so special would be destroyed if the proposal went ahead.  It did not comply with the preferences expressed in the NDP and it would bring the local infrastructure to breaking point.

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

·        Weight should be given to the NDP.  The application did not provide economic, social, or environmental benefit.  The parish had met its minimum housing target.

·        The proposal was out of keeping with the very distinctive, historic character of Welsh Newton Common.  The landscape was unchanged from that shown on the 1882 map.  It was a very special and rare landscape in the county that should not be damaged.

·        The proposal did not promote community cohesion and a sense of belonging as advocated by the National Design Guide because it did not represent organic growth.

·        The proposed dwellings were of a size, height and form that was in conflict with the NDP.

·        It was questioned whether the access road was a made up road.

·        There was conflict between the natural environment and the built development.  The pattern of development did not contribute to the local character.

·        The settlement lacked facilities and was car dependent.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the area was identified within Core Strategy policy RA2 as an area suitable for proportionate growth.  There was a conflict with NDP policies regarding the height and size of the proposed dwellings.  However, the NDP had not allocated sites for development.  Account therefore had to be taken of the county’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply and an assessment made as to whether the harm caused by the development significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.  Officers had concluded that the harm did not outweigh the benefits.  The landscape was attractive but it was not designated.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She welcomed the Committee’s recognition of the character of the settlement and the weight given in the debate to the NDP.

Councillor Fagan proposed and Councillor Milln seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to NDP policies WNL4 and WNL5 and CS policies, SS6, RA2 and SD1. The motion was carried unanimously with 15 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal  was contrary to NDP policies WNL4 and WNL5 and CS policies, SS6, RA2 and SD1.