Agenda item

East Lodge, Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby

Applicant:      Mr G Gray

Location:        East Lodge, Longcliff Hill, Old Dalby, LE14 3LP

Proposal:       Outline planning permission for 8 dwellings and access (some matters reserved).

 

(a)       The Planning Officer (GBA) stated that: This specific application proposes eight houses north of the previous scheme along an access road to the property of Longcliffe Hill House.

Despite having the sustainable credentials as previously discussed however, this development proposes a development that in planning terms fails to respect the character of Old Dalby and therefore outweighs any benefits the scheme may have demonstrably and significantly and therefore is recommended for refusal.

 

Prior to taking up his allocated speakers slot Cllr Bennett requested confirmation of the address as the Planning Officer (GBA) had referred to Longcliffe House. The Planning Officer extended his apologies and confirmed that the report referred to East Lodge.

 

(b)       Cllr Bennett, on behalf of Broughton and Dalby Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           The parish council agreed with the recommendation of refusal and that additional planning matters should be taken in to account.

•           The Planning Committee Members set a precedent with how much weight it applies to the emerging local plan and the advanced neighbourhood plans, in the recent decisions on proposals in Waltham on the Wolds, at their meeting on 17th October 2017.

•           Inconsistent with both policies in both plans. It does not form part of the plan development and thus is considered windfall, lying outside the proposed limits to development.

•           Old Dalby has already exceeded its minimum housing requirement.

•           Recent appeal decisions for our parish also update the interpretation policies. These should also be given weight.

•           The housing mix proposed is incorrect.

 

(c)        James Botterill, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

•           There are many positive aspects to the scheme.

•           No technical objections.

•           In a sustainable location and will assist in providing much needed housing.

•           The Officers report has been written as if previous recent approvals do not exist. In fact they add a substantial material weight to the application of this site.

•           The Officers recommended refusal for Mr Benbow’s application for the same reasons as this one. It is about 100 metres to the west of our site. However the Members approved that application. The applications are very similar.

•           The approvals for Mr Orson and Mr Benbow have set an enormous precedent for residential development for this part of the village.

•           Our scheme can‘t be considered any more disjointed to the village than these.

•           By travel distance the siting of our dwellings are significantly closer to the existing built fabric of the village. Resulting in shorter walking distances to the local amenities.

 

A Cllr asked where you draw the line with planning permissions as they could keep going on.

 

Mr Botterill responded that this particular scheme is well contained with a private drive to the east which forms a natural boundary and also got the existing house of East Lodge to the East. Natural boundary to the south which is the road and natural boundary to the west which is Mr Orsons approval. We are no further north into the open countryside that the other previously approved application mentioned.

 

The Planning Officer (GBA) noted that this application stresses the relationship with the built form of Old Dalby. This application protrudes too far into the countryside.

 

Cllr Chandler proposed refusal of the application as per recommendation. Already have 5 year land supply and can’t add more harmful houses to the village when they already have their entitlement. Lifestyles have changed as people don’t use the local shops and amenities anymore.

 

Cllr Holmes seconded the proposal.

 

Members offered their support to the Officers recommendation and agreed that it is disjointed with the village.

 

A vote was taken. 10 Members voted for refusal and 1 Member voted against refusal.

 

Determination: REFUSE for the following reason:

The application site is in a location which is poorly related to the built form of Old Dalby and would appear disjointed and incongruous, failing to respond to the exiting build form of the village. Development of the site would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside which contributes to the setting of the village, and is contrary to the adopted Local Plan Policies OS2, BE1 and H6, The Proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, particularly paragraphs, 56, 61 and 64. The proposal's identified harm in this regard would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivery of housing, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.