Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 17/03411/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application for the proposed erection of 11 no. new dwellings on land to the rear of Stretton Close. Matters for consideration in detail at this stage were layout, access and scale only. All other matters (appearance and landscape) were intended to be dealt with in detail at the reserved matters stage should the application be approved.

Masie Masiiwa, the Planning Officer, in introducing the report stated that the proposal would deliver 2 x two bedroom dwellings; 1 x three bedroom dwelling and 8 x four bedroom dwellings. Access into the application site was via a gated entrance in the southern boundary of the application site and the gate was accessed off Stretton Close and between nos. 7 and 9 Stretton Close onto an existing turning head.

The immediate area was rural in character, being located within the North Wessex Downs AONB. The area was characterised by linear ribbon developments along Southend Road, and the existing Stretton Close development. There had also been very small limited infill developments and further limited development in terms of depth. New development in this location should respect the local distinctiveness and rural landscape character.

The application site was located mostly within the recently reviewed settlement boundary with the settlement boundary line dissecting the site. Policy HSA 22 of the HSADPD was the site specific policy for the application site. The allocated site had a developable area of approximately 0.6 hectares and the Policy allocated approximately 10 dwellings, taking into account the outcomes of the Landscape Capacity Assessment (2014). According to the HSADPD, this site was expected to deliver early and to contribute immediately to the supply of land needed to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The proposed development would provide up to 11 dwellings within a 0.7 hectare area of residential development. The total site area was 1 hectare, with 0.3 hectares of the land covered by the trees along the boundaries and within the site. The residential area shown on the Illustrative Landscape Plan was not consistent with the HSADPD plan, however it had undergone landscape appraisal in its own right and to ensure the protected trees could be retained and protected, the proposed developable area had been slightly reviewed. The Council’s Tree Officer stated that the landscaping for the site, needed to take the existing site features into consideration, its position in the countryside and the future relationship with existing residents, the boundaries would need to be landscaped to improve on the already existing site features and natural screening and help reduce any visual impact of new dwellings.

Following the Committee site visit, the application was deferred from the Planning Committee scheduled for 11 April 2018. The Planning Policy team had now provided comments in respect of affordable housing and had indicated that given this site was greater than 0.5 hectares and was a greenfield site, the policy would require the provision of 40% affordable housing on site. This equated to 4 units (rounded down). This was notwithstanding that the development was for less than 15 dwellings. It was noted that the developer was willing to agree to the provision of affordable housing at 40% and to enter into a Section 106 agreement should there be a resolution to approve the application.

The dwellings had been designed such that their layout, size and scale did not appear out of context in relation to the adjacent properties to the south and east. The height of the dwelling at Plot 1 was lower than the height of the nearest dwelling at Stretton Close.

Section 1.4 of Part 2 (Residential Development) of the Council’s Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) considered the relationship of new housing to the open countryside and landscape setting. Paragraph 1.4.1 commented that new development on sites close to the edge of a settlement would need to demonstrate how the inter-relationship between open countryside and development form was respected. It went on to state that particular care and attention should be taken to protect and enhance the AONB.

Given the location of the site on the edge of a rural settlement within the AONB and the fact the proposal sought to develop beyond the identified developable area of the site, Officers were satisfied, that sufficient landscaping could be achieved at reserved matters stage to justify the proposed development. Further consideration had been given to the requirement for a drainage pond to serve the development.

In conclusion having regard to the relevant development plan policies and other material considerations it was considered that the development was acceptable and should be approved. The proposal would not harm the existing character and appearance of the surrounding AONB area and how it functioned. The proposal would not have a material impact on neighbouring amenity, would secure sufficient garden amenity for future occupiers and would not present an adverse impact on highway safety. These considerations carried significant weight and indicated that conditional planning permission should be approved.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Andrew House, Parish Council representative, and Mr Jon Alderman, objector, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr House in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr. House was Chairman of Bradfield Parish Council and he confirmed that the Parish Council had no objections in terms of layout and scale. However, it did have concerns in relation to the developable area, affordable housing, the AONB and water logging on the site;

·                    AONBs were of national importance and there was great weight in preserving the landscape in these areas;

·                    The boundary screening and tree line were important and there were concerns that this proposal would expand outside of the developable area. He felt that the reasoning set out in the report was subjective;

·                    The report referred to the developable area being both 0.6 hectares and 0.7 hectares;

·                    The north-west corner of the site had been the area discussed in the most detail and there was a woodland group of trees in this location which abutted the AONB;

·                    The Parish Council were supportive that social housing should be retained in the development as this was important;

·                    As could be seen at the site visit the site could be wet at times. Prior to the site visit only 2mm of rain had fallen within the previous 48 hours;

·                    The Parish Council was of the opinion that the site had significant challenges which would need to be overcome but they also felt that should the application be approved then the provision of affordable housing was of great importance.

Mr Alderman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    Mr. Alderman confirmed that he had lived for 25 years in 14 Stanbrook Close and had liaised mostly with other residents in Stanbrook Close in making representations in relation to this proposal;

·                    He concurred with the Parish Council in terms of the developable area. The settlement boundary for the village was around the path of the landscape buffer and therefore some of the proposed development (plots 7 and 8) would be outside the settlement boundary;

·                    Plots 4, 5 and 6 in the north east corner of the site backed on to Stanbrook Close residents and it was felt that the layout of those plots were out of character;

·                    The report stated that the separation distances were generous but the gaps were outside the character of neighbouring properties. Mr. Alderman therefore felt that concerns around distances had not been considered and he asked if the arrangement of plots 4, 5 and 6 could be reconsidered so that they were not back to back with properties on Stanbrook Close;

·                    In terms of screening trees and hedges would only provide cover for six months of the year;

·                    Stanbrook Close residents were west facing and therefore would lose sunlight earlier than they did at present;

·                    He asked the Committee to consider removing plots 7 and 8 and revising the layout of plots 4, 5 and 6 (possibly reducing to two dwellings).

Councillor Graham Pask asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Alderman had requested that plots 7 and 8 should be removed from the proposed development. Mr. Alderman confirmed that that was the case as they were outside the settlement boundary.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the distances between plots 4, 5 and 6 and those properties in Stanbrook Close. The report stated that the rear elevations of all of these dwellings were located at least 21 metres from the proposed houses and he asked if Mr. Alderman accepted that fact. Mr. Alderman confirmed that he did. Councillor Bridgman therefore felt that there would be no loss of sunlight as had been suggested. Mr. Alderman responded that he could only base that on his current experience from his shed. The houses behind would be 10-11m high and therefore the sun would be obscured earlier than it currently was.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe noted that the site was boggy in places and that the green area to the back of plots 4, 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 would have a SUDS pond. He would enquire about the drainage plan as by disturbing soil this might have an impact on the watercourse. Mr. Alderman confirmed that there had been some localised flooding on site. SUDS did not link into the system and therefore there would be some element of surface water ponding.

Councillor Graham Pask, as Ward Member, noted that representation had been heard from the Parish Council and local residents. Mr. Alderman had accepted the principle of development but Councillor Pask still felt that further clarification was required around the number of plots, the settlement boundary and surface water. He was torn in two directions as he accepted that the residents had concerns about the change to their outlook and the loss of sunlight but there were questions in respect of the settlement boundary and whether it was acceptable to redraw boundaries around DPD sites. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was unusual but the settlement boundary dissected the site. However, when consideration was given to site constraints, protected trees, the need for a sustainable drainage plan and the need to incorporate ten houses on the site then it was felt to be appropriate to move the settlement boundary in this case. There was potential for mitigation in terms of landscaping on the boundaries.

Councillor Alan Law referred to paragraphs 6.3.13 and 6.3.15 in respect of comments from Planning Policy which clearly stated that plots 7 and 8 were outside of the settlement boundary. Policy C1 of the HSADPD stated that there would be a presumption against new development outside the settlement boundary and that exceptions to this were listed in the policy. However, this site was not an exceptional circumstance. The Planning Officer responded that in this case in order to deliver the required number of dwellings and to maximise the use of the land Officers had reviewed the proposal at the planning application stage and had taken the view that the proposal would not be achievable in the developable area and had therefore agreed that two dwellings would be acceptable outside the settlement boundary because of these exceptional circumstances.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that the site was an allocated site within the DPD for ten dwellings. Why had this site been accepted for ten dwellings in the DPD if that was not achievable within the settlement boundary.

Councillor Peter Argyle noted that the application was for outline planning permission and he queried whether the plan that came back for reserved matters approval would then adopt the layout being considered that evening. The Planning Officer confirmed that the layout, scale and number of dwellings would be fixed if the current outline application was approved.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked about the drainage issues. The Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no objections raised from the Drainage Team. Condition 12 referred to the drainage details which would need to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. There was also an informative in respect of surface water drainage and set out the need to obtain approval from Thames Water to discharge to a public sewer.

In response to a query in relation to affordable housing it was noted that four affordable units would be provided on the site and these would be – Plot 1 (3 bedroom) shared ownership and plots 10 and 11 (2 bedroom) social rented. The fourth dwelling would be one of the four bedroom plots and this would be agreed with the Housing Officers.

Councillor Graham Bridgman proposed that the application should be refused on the basis that plots 7 and 8 were outside the defined settlement boundary and that no exception had been demonstrated in respect of rules about building in the countryside. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly.

Councillor Alan Law confirmed that a lot of work had been undertaken in respect of the DPD and site allocation and various issues had arisen but never one in relation to development outside of the settlement boundary. Settlement boundaries had been reviewed about 24 months ago but this site had not formed part of that review. In his view this application contravened Policy C1. Councillor Richard Somner agreed that the issue around settlement boundaries was one that came up regularly and the Committee had always been advised against development outside the settlement boundary. 

Councillor Emma Webster referred to a similar application which had been approved in her Ward. She referred to paragraph 6.3.18 which stated that the layout should sufficiently protect the existing key features of the site. The proposal did take into account the quirk of the site and the protection of the SUDs area. She commended the developers for committing to the provision of 40% affordable housing on the site and if the Committee refused the application this would reduce the number of affordable housing units available within the village of Bradfield.

Councillor Graham Pask was concerned that if the developer came back with a different scheme within the settlement boundary that might concentrate the dwellings closer to neighbouring residents.

Councillor Alan Law agreed with the comments made by Councillor Webster in relation to the loss of affordable housing. However, there was no guarantee that the developer would deliver the number of affordable housing units proposed and he was concerned about setting a precedent in relation to a development which was partly outside the settlement boundary.

David Pearson, the Development Control Team Leader, stated that it was rare that Officers would recommend housing outside of the settlement boundary. Colleagues in Planning Policy had indicated that achieving ten dwellings within the developable area would be tight. He understood why Members would want to refuse the application but he felt that the circumstances of the site would make it difficult to defend at appeal. He asked Members to consider if harm to the AONB could be demonstrated.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to the issue around the settlement boundary and in particular a discussion on another application where Members had been told that they had to adhere to the Council’s policies. This application contravened Council policy and did not fit criteria where an exception could be made. In his view the application should therefore be refused. 

The motion to refuse the application was put to the Committee and the majority of the Committee agreed. Councillor Alan Macro abstained from voting.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission as the application contravened the Council’s Planning Policies in respect of development in the countryside outside of settlement boundaries.