Agenda item

Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 95 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system and vehicular access from Back Road. All matters reserved apart from means of access.

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.

Members visited the site on 4 July 2017.

The Case Officer confirmed that the applicant was prepared to accept Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliant contributions, and summarised the report

Jean Kelly (objector from Hildersham), Councillor Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) and Councillor Henry Batchelor (local Member) addressed the meeting.

Jean Kelly highlighted the impact of increased traffic to Hildersham, and potential damage to grass verges due to the narrow nature of the roads. She also referred to the implications for landscape views and local archaeology. Linton Parish Council did not see a need for more houses in the village at this stage. The development would dominate. The Parish Council had concerns about the impact on archaeology, and the problem of surface water drainage, and flood risk. Councillor Bald expressed local fears about increased traffic, highway safety and general harm to Linton. The development was considered to be unsustainable.

Councillor Bald said that the application site had not been selected to form part of the emerging Local Plan, and was not in the Neighbourhood Plan. Linton Parish Council did not see a need for more houses in the village at this stage. The development would dominate. The Parish Council had concerns about the impact on archaeology, and the problem of surface water drainage, and flood risk. Councillor Bald expressed local fears about increased traffic, highway safety and general harm to Linton. The development was considered to be unsustainable.

Councillor Henry Batchelor summed up his concerns as relating to

·       Cumulative impact

·       The nature of the site

·       The increasing weight that could be given to policies in the emerging Local Plan to substantiate the argument of unsustainability.

Councillor Henry Batchelor urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Speaking as the other local Member, Councillor John Batchelor also urged refusal, describing the proposed development as overbearing. He pointed out that the proposal would result in the loss of an area of Grade 1 agricultural land. He said it would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the village, such as to outweigh any benefits that might flow from the development.

During the ensuing debate, Committee members made the following points:

·       There was a profound, and significantly adverse, impact

·       The applicant had been given the opportunity to provide additional information requested, but had not done so

·       Food production should be a key material consideration in this instance

Despite the finely balanced arguments, the Case Officer considered that landscape was a sufficient reason to refuse the application, and defending any subsequent appeal.

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.