Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 46 no. dwellings, children's play area, two new sports pitches, pavilion building and associated infrastructure.

RESOLVED: That, application 17/01406/1 be REFUSED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Residential development of 46 no. dwellings, children's play area, two new sports pitches, pavilion building and associated infrastructure.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

Mr Richard Young, speaking in objection to the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr Young informed Members that he was not going to speak about the many reasons for refusing the application that were included on the officer’s report, but would rather concentrate on a couple of key areas.

There were two main reasons for refusal being the impact on the village and the location of the application site outside of the village.

Ashwell was an historic village with over 1,000 years of history.

The visual approach to the site would have a significantly urbanising effect on the village, not only from Station Road, but also from the Slip End access, which was significantly higher and looked down onto the site.

In terms of the impact on the village, the primary school had no capacity, with several sales of houses in the village not proceeding due to there being no places available.

Clearly 46 additional house, would place a significant demand on the local amenities.

These houses would create significant additional traffic issues both in and out of the village.

In terms of the location of the site, it was right on the very edge of the village and was the furthest away from the centre than any other building in the village.

It was on the absolute limit of where anyone would walk and therefore it was almost certain that anyone travelling to the village from this site would use a car, there were no parking spaces in the middle of the village and the village was already highly congested with traffic, particularly at the weekends and anybody living on this site would need to commute for work

The journey along Station Road included a very dangerous junction with Lucas Lane, where there had been numerous accidents including one fatality and this development would add to the traffic issues.

The journey in the opposite direction included the junction with the A505 which was an extremely dangerous junction where there had again been numerous accidents and this development would again compound the issues.

The site was outside of the village boundary, and was not included in the Local Plan and was therefore an opportunistic development. This was purely an opportunity for the landowner to make money and there was no support from the village for this development.

Mr Young concluded by stating that the village could not cope with these additional houses, there was already significant development in the village, the location would urbanise a beautiful village and result in a significant increase in traffic using dangerous junctions.

He asked Members to refuse permission.

Mr Stuart Booth, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr Booth advised that there had been a significant amount of feedback from officers that had led to the reasons for refusal, these matters could be addressed through negotiation as was normal with applications.

The site was immediately adjacent to existing houses in the village boundary and had access to the road through the village and had direct access onto Station Road which had a petrol station and a shop. Immediately adjacent was the tennis club and cycle club.

There was a good pathway from the site to the village centre and there was access to the station, which was also a bus route demonstrating that this was a sustainable location, in terms of alternative modes of travel, the development would provide improvements to the footway as well as providing a bus stop.

The opportunity to consider this site for inclusion in the Local Plan was missed as the Applicant had not been aware of the site until the Plan was drafted. However the District was not going to have sufficient planning permission to meet the housing need shortfall and therefore the Council needed to balance the potential negatives of development against the sustainable credentials that this scheme provided.

The Applicant had not been given the opportunity to address the objections. The potential negatives of developing this site amounted to landscape impact. The Local Plan included thousands of potential homes on the green belt and the potential benefits of developing this single field, on the edge of Ashwell, in a sustainable location should be considered in this context.

This was an application for mixed house types of varying sizes that were suitable for young families and smaller homes people wising to downsize, which was an identified local need.

In addition it met the direct need for sport provision by providing the specific sports facilities and changing rooms that had been requested.

Mr Booth acknowledged the objections made by the Parish Council but they had also objected to the previous plan, which was part of the Local Plan.

He reminded the Committee that they had a duty to make decisions to provide new housing

The Local Plan had a provision within it for windfall sites, such as this, to come forward. The number of new houses that currently had permission would not provide even the next two years of need.

This development provided significant social, economic and environmental benefits and the development itself was mitigated by good design with landscape design, sports pitches and facilities.

He reminded Members that they had engaged with residents and that there had been very few letters of objection to the scheme

He requested that Members consider the benefits of this scheme that would meet identified need.

The Chairman thanked Mr Booth for his presentation.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that windfall sites would have to be policy compliant in regards to the existing and emerging Local Plan Policy.

Members referred to Paragraphs 3.7 and 4.3.29 of the report regarding Highways and expressed disappointment that the dangers regarding the junctions and traffic were not supported by reasons for refusal. They were surprised that no objections had been raised considering the comments made regarding the suitability of parking on the site and the limits of highway adoption given the road layout and further that they appeared to be agreeing to roads that were unacceptable.

They commented that this was an inappropriate form of development in a village that didn’t relate on any way to the village. Expansions to historic villages such as Ashwell had to be sympathetic and bear in mind the existing built environment, rather than an Off-the-shelf bolt on of standard housing.

It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED: That, application 17/01406/1 be REFUSED planning permission, subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.