Decision details

All Planning Applications for Linton considered by the Planning Committee since May 2003. For individual reports, please click on the ‘Meetings’ tab above. For further details on all Linton Planning Applications, please visit our Planning Applications Database and select Linton from the drop-down list of parishes.

The Committee refused the application unanimously, for the reasons set out below (amended from those set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development):

i)          The proposed development would result in encroachment into this open landscape setting of the village on land that rises between the valley and woodland and result in the loss of a proportion of the rolling chalkland hills that are distinctive to the landscape setting of the village and make an important contribution to the landscape character setting of the village. This would lead to a visually intrusive and dominant mass of built form that would detract from the rural character and appearance of the area in short distance views from Back Road and the adjacent public right of way and long distance views from the A1307 and the road to Hildersham. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DP/3 and NE/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that seeks to protect the character and appearance of the countryside and retain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness of landscape character areas. This reason alone is considered to result in an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing additional housing (including affordable housing) to meet the Council's housing land supply, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

ii)         Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that traffic generation from the development would not be detrimental to the capacity and functioning of the public highway. In addition, the proposed access is considered to be substandard in terms of its visibility and potentially levels and would result in a hazard that would be detrimental to highway safety and there would be inadequate pedestrian connectivity to the village. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states all development proposals should provide appropriate access from the highway network that does not compromise safety.

iii)        Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the impact of the proposal upon features of archaeological interest to demonstrate that the proposal could be accommodated on the site without harm to heritage assets. The proposal cannot be supported until the results of a trench-based field evaluation have been carried out prior to approval being granted. The proposal  is therefore contrary to Policy CH/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states archaeological sites will be protected in accordance with national policy and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 that states the effect of the proposal upon the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining an application having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

iv)        Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the impact and mitigation of the new footway and traffic from the proposal upon the Furze Hills Protected Roadside Verge County Wildlife Site and Hildersham Protected Verges. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states planning permission will not be given for proposals that may have an unacceptable adverse impact, either directly or indirectly, on a Site of Biodiversity Importance.

v)         The proposal would result in the loss of a proportion of grade I agricultural land. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF 2012 that states Local Planning Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural and where development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality. 

vi)        The adverse impacts identified above are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing additional housing (including affordable housing) to meet the Council's housing land supply, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.