Agenda item

S/3921/19/FL - Little Abington (Bancroft Farm, Church Lane)

 

Erection of 6 no. dwellings and the change of use and conversion of 2no. agricultural barns to office space (Use Class B1(a) following the demolition of agricultural buildings and removal of hardstanding and associated works (Re-submission of S/1388/19/FL)

Decision:

By seven votes to four, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

 

Reason 1: PVAA Encroachment / Impact

 

The application site is located adjacent to, and partially within, a Protected Village Amenity Area which provides a significant contribution to the legibility of the village, maintaining an important area of open land at the centre of the village that supports the rural character, amenity and sense of tranquillity of Little Abington.

 

The proposed development, by virtue of its encroachment into this Protected Village Amenity Area, would undermine the undeveloped nature and rural character at the centre of the village, failing to preserve the local rural character, amenity and sense of tranquillity of the area or provide a place-responsive, and legible form of development. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies S/7, HQ/1 and NH/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, particularly paragraphs 127 and 130.

 

Reason 2: Character / Heritage Impact

 

The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, scale and massing would significantly erode the relatively undeveloped nature of the application site and its rural quality, which contributes positively to the existing character of the Conservation Area. The siting of Plots 1 and 6, being located adjacent to the public highway, would represent an overly dominant and prominent form of development which would detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

 

Furthermore, by virtue of their siting, Plots 1 and 6 would be evident in street scene views to the south towards Church of St Mary the Virgin, a Grade II* Listed Building, impacting on its setting. When viewed from the east, along the public right of way, views of the Church would be further eroded due to the inappropriate scale and massing of the proposed development.

 

The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the Church of St Mary the Virgin. It is not considered that the proposal results in public benefits that would outweigh the harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and the Grade II* listed church.

 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies HQ/1 and NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 that require development proposals to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their settings, as appropriate to their significance, the Council’s Listed Building and Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Documents and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, chapter 16.

 

(Councillors Cahn, Fane, Hawkins, and Milnes voted to approve the application. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted to refuse.)

Minutes:

The case officer corrected two typographical errors in the agenda report. In paragraph 14 referred to comments from Little Abington Parish Council and not Great Abington Parish Council. In paragraph 154, the trees identified as T3 and T5 as good quality (Category B) rather than moderate to low quality (Category C).

 

Tony Orgee (objector), Jon Jennings (applicant’s agent), Councillor Sheila Bolden (Little Abington Parish Council). And Councillor Henry Batchelor (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

 

Councillor Nick Wright supported development on former farm sites in principle but was not convinced by this proposal. He would have preferred to have seen a development of ‘live / work’ units.

 

Councillor Peter Fane agreed that ‘live / work’ units would have been better but observed that the current proposal still respected the former farmyard.

 

The following points were made and discussed:

 

·       The importance of Policy NH/11

·       Concerns about car parking notwithstanding its policy compliance

·       Effect on the Little Abington Conservation Area

·       Perceived harm to the Protected Village Amenity Area (PVAA)

·       Concern at the removal of established trees

·       Design

 

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn suggested that, despite reservation about the loss of trees, the proposal might enhance views from the PVAA and prove itself to be an asset to Little Abington.

 

Speaking as the other local Member, Councillor John Batchelor invited Members to weigh up the benefits and planning harm. He said that the PVAA, Policies and heritage assets were all important considerations. In his view, the proposal neither preserved nor enhanced the Conservation Area. There was no evidence that the office units would be let, and no community benefit by way of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

By seven votes to four, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:

 

Reason 1: PVAA Encroachment / Impact

 

The application site is located adjacent to, and partially within, a Protected Village Amenity Area which provides a significant contribution to the legibility of the village, maintaining an important area of open land at the centre of the village that supports the rural character, amenity and sense of tranquillity of Little Abington.

 

The proposed development, by virtue of its encroachment into this Protected Village Amenity Area, would undermine the undeveloped nature and rural character at the centre of the village, failing to preserve the local rural character, amenity and sense of tranquillity of the area or provide a place-responsive, and legible form of development. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policies S/7, HQ/1 and NH/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, particularly paragraphs 127 and 130.

 

Reason 2: Character / Heritage Impact

 

The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, scale and massing would significantly erode the relatively undeveloped nature of the application site and its rural quality, which contributes positively to the existing character of the Conservation Area. The siting of Plots 1 and 6, being located adjacent to the public highway, would represent an overly dominant and prominent form of development which would detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

 

Furthermore, by virtue of their siting, Plots 1 and 6 would be evident in street scene views to the south towards Church of St Mary the Virgin, a Grade II* Listed Building, impacting on its setting. When viewed from the east, along the public right of way, views of the Church would be further eroded due to the inappropriate scale and massing of the proposed development.

 

The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the Church of St Mary the Virgin. It is not considered that the proposal results in public benefits that would outweigh the harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and the Grade II* listed church.

 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies HQ/1 and NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 that require development proposals to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their settings, as appropriate to their significance, the Council’s Listed Building and Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Documents and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, chapter 16.

 

(Councillors Cahn, Fane, Hawkins, and Milnes voted to approve the application. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted to refuse.)

Supporting documents: