Agenda item

By eight votes to one, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development 

The full planning application was located within the Development Framework of Rampton identified by Policy S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018  as an Infill Village within the adopted Local Plan. The Policy stated that residential development would be permitted in the village where there were two dwellings. If there were to be more than two dwellings, then they must be of very exceptional circumstance.

This development by virtue of its poor design, would create harm to the Rampton Conservation Area where it is situated, have a poor relationship with the neighbouring properties and harm their amenity.

Therefore, this was not a development of very exceptional circumstance and not in conformity with Policy S/11, S/7 and S/2 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

2.    Impact on heritage assets

This application had been refused due to the less than significant harm that would be caused to the Rampton Conservation Area. The dwellings were not reflective of the character of the Conservation Area, the level of development was too intense for this site and their design did not reflect the historic core of the Conservation Area, nor did the dwellings reflect the previous uses of the site as a farm yard. The visibility of the buildings from around the site would remove the current openness which was a unique feature of this yard to such an extent that would cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area.

The public benefit stated by the supporting information was not acceptable as it did not provide sufficient justification for development within the Conservation Area. The proposal was not in conformity with Policy NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Rampton Conservation Area Appraisal.

3.    Character and Design of the Development

Policy HQ/1 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire  Local Plan 2018 stated that development within the district must be reflective of the character of the area in which it was located, create a legible and place-responsive design, that created a sense of place and identity. Parking within the development should be well integrated.

This application would harm the Conservation Area as it was not reflective of the character of its surroundings. It would be visible from important views into the site and mainly The Green. Within the site the U-shaped development would create a cul-de-sac which was not a character of the Conservation Area.

When entering the site, parking being proposed would be dominant, which could be viewed from outside the site.

The application was not in accordance with Policy HQ/1of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the NPPF, both of which required a high standard of development reflective of the surrounding area.

4.    Residential Amenity 

Within Plot 1 bedroom four was smaller than the requirement in Policy H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Plots 3 and 4 did not meet the requirement of creating a residential garden that was 15 metres from the rear elevation of the development to the rear common boundary, as stated in the District Design Guide.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the future residents of the site and the amenity of the neighbouring properties. This application was not in conformity with Policies HQ/1, H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the District Design Guide and the NPPF.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam. Cahn, Haswkins, Heylings, Richard Williams, Wilson and Wright voted to refuse the application. Councillor Fane voted to approve it. Councillor Roberts did not vote.)

Mr. Gadsby (objector) addressed the meeting.

Councillor Eileen Wilson (a local Member) highlighted the scarce amenities in Rampton giving rise to a high dependancy on private motor vehicles.

Other Committee members made points based on the following

·       Viability

·       The minimal impact on Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area

·       Local opinion

·       The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and revised National Planning Policy Framework

The Delivery Manager (Strategic Sites) read out a statement from Councillor Neil Gough (the other local Member).

By eight votes to one, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development 

The full planning application was located within the Development Framework of Rampton identified by Policy S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018  as an Infill Village within the adopted Local Plan. The Policy stated that residential development would be permitted in the village where there were two dwellings. If there were to be more than two dwellings, then they must be of very exceptional circumstance.

This development by virtue of its poor design, would create harm to the Rampton Conservation Area where it is situated, have a poor relationship with the neighbouring properties and harm their amenity.

Therefore, this was not a development of very exceptional circumstance and not in conformity with Policy S/11, S/7 and S/2 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

2.    Impact on heritage assets

This application had been refused due to the less than significant harm that would be caused to the Rampton Conservation Area. The dwellings were not reflective of the character of the Conservation Area, the level of development was too intense for this site and their design did not reflect the historic core of the Conservation Area, nor did the dwellings reflect the previous uses of the site as a farm yard. The visibility of the buildings from around the site would remove the current openness which was a unique feature of this yard to such an extent that would cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area.

The public benefit stated by the supporting information was not acceptable as it did not provide sufficient justification for development within the Conservation Area. The proposal was not in conformity with Policy NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Rampton Conservation Area Appraisal.

3.    Character and Design of the Development

Policy HQ/1 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire  Local Plan 2018 stated that development within the district must be reflective of the character of the area in which it was located, create a legible and place-responsive design, that created a sense of place and identity. Parking within the development should be well integrated.

This application would harm the Conservation Area as it was not reflective of the character of its surroundings. It would be visible from important views into the site and mainly The Green. Within the site the U-shaped development would create a cul-de-sac which was not a character of the Conservation Area.

When entering the site, parking being proposed would be dominant, which could be viewed from outside the site.

The application was not in accordance with Policy HQ/1of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the NPPF, both of which required a high standard of development reflective of the surrounding area.

4.    Residential Amenity 

Within Plot 1 bedroom four was smaller than the requirement in Policy H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Plots 3 and 4 did not meet the requirement of creating a residential garden that was 15 metres from the rear elevation of the development to the rear common boundary, as stated in the District Design Guide.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the future residents of the site and the amenity of the neighbouring properties. This application was not in conformity with Policies HQ/1, H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the District Design Guide and the NPPF.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam. Cahn, Haswkins, Heylings, Richard Williams, Wilson and Wright voted to refuse the application. Councillor Fane voted to approve it. Councillor Roberts did not vote.)