Swiftmap Layout
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
17 r Caldecott o o k 0 Pond 52.4m © Crown copyright and database rights [2013] Ordnance Survey [100018056] Pond Ivy House Farm Riverbanks WB 1 .2 R 2 H m 17 Sluice 52.4m ROCKIINGHAM ROAD D e f 1 BS 6 The Castle Inn M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Sta Ppg I I I I I I I I I I I IL I I I I I I I I I I I I I L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Mill Cott L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 1 L L L L L L L L L L 1 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L (PH) L A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Meadow 9 Farm Pond 3 1 2 Scale - 1:2500 Time of plot: 12:24 Date of plot: 21/01/2014 G ara ge 51.5m 5 2 2 Stable Yard 6 2 1 7 4 4 1 8 TCB 2 The Green 2 3 5 3 4 Hall 3 4 1 C HU RC 4 H L LA 1 N 3 4 E MM AA C CHU INIININIINIIN RC NN CH CLL Cott SSTSSTSSTSTS The STST TTT RR 1 EEEEEE Honeysuckle E Markham ETEET Glebe a Cottage House 9 TTT 3 The Plough Priest House House 3 Inn D is 9 ma 3 Rutland County Council Catmose, Oakham, Rutland LE15 6HP n t le d 7 R 3 1 a 4 2 ilw a y The Old School House 3 3 1 2 5 School House 3 1 1 3 0 7 2 8 1 2 6 3 57.9m 2 3 1 5 400m 2 9 7 3 5 1 a 3 Application: 2013/0967/OUT ITEM 2 Proposal: Outline planning permission for the erection of circa 47 No. dwellings, associated parking and ancillary amenities. Address: Land south of Caldecott Applicant: Mr M Sharman Parish Caldecott Agent: Mr Drummond Robson Ward Lyddington Reason for presenting to Committee: Major application in open countryside Significant local objection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an outline application for residential development on open pasture land to the south of the village. The site is outside the Planned Limit to Development and in open countryside. The site was submitted as a potential housing site in the Site Allocations and Polices DPD process but was not allocated as a development site in the Submission document. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date 5 year land supply, including the 20% margin required by the National Planning Policy Framework. There has been significant local opposition to the proposal. The application is contrary to policy and there are no material considerations that would suggest that the development should be approved. Flooding, archaeology and ecology issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. No Developer Contributions have been offered as part of the application. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION, for the following reasons: 1. The site lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott where policies in the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) limit development in the countryside to certain essential uses provided that these meet certain criteria. The proposal does not constitute one of these exceptions. The emerging Site Allocations and Polices DPD (Proposed Submission Document, April 2013), also shows that the proposed area for residential development lies outside the Planned Limit to Development for Caldecott and is therefore subject to its policies relating to housing in the countryside, which again are restrictive. The site was put forward by the applicant for inclusion as a housing allocation in the Site Allocations and Policies DPD but it was not accepted by the Council following a site appraisal process. The site, together with wider land to the south of Caldecott is designated in the Rutland Local Plan as Particularly Attractive Countryside. The Local Planning Authority can demonstrate an up to date five year land supply with a 20% buffer as required by Para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Local Planning Authority does not accept the reduced figures suggested by the applicant, based on reduced delivery at the Oakham North site. Similarly, there is no identified need for additional housing in Caldecott that would justify overriding the policies. On that basis there is no need to exceptionally release this land for 18 development. The development would be prominent in the landscape when approaching Caldecott from the south and would harm the tranquil rural character of this edge of the village. The proposal would constitute a significant rise in the number of dwellings in a Smaller Service centre, leading to an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and further burden on an already low level of local services. The proposal would thereby be contrary to saved Policies EN26 and EN28 of the adopted Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS4 and CS21 of the adopted Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP5 of the Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013). 2. The design illustrations of the proposed dwellings are considered to be inappropriate for this location on the edge of a traditional Rutland village where the predominant materials are ironstone and slate. The layout is led by the need to avoid the main flood zone area and as such is not locally distinctive where the pattern of development in the village is of buildings close to the rear of the footpaths. The development is urban in nature in that it utilises terraces of properties and presents a car dominated appearance. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in Para 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2013). 3. The application is not accompanied by any commitment to make developer contributions in line with the Council’s polices. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policies CS8 and CS11 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Developer Contributions (2010) and Affordable Housing (2012). 4. The site is in an area at risk of flooding from both the Eye Brook and the Eyebrook Reservoir. The Environment Agency advises that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not adequately deal with this issue. Potential occupiers of the development would thereby be subject to an unnecessary risk in addition to the development displacing flood water elsewhere to the detriment of other nearby property. The proposal would thereby be contrary to the advice in saved policy UT5 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policies CS1 and CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and the advice in Para’s 99-103 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. No archaeological study has been undertaken to understand the importance of the site. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy CS22 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011), saved Policy EN14 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001), Policy SP19 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (April 2013) and the advice in Para’s 128, 129 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. The site is considered to be of ecological importance and the submitted Habitat Survey is not considered to adequately address this issue. The development is also considered to be too close to the river and site boundaries to ensure that biodiversity and protected species are adequately protected. The scheme is thereby contrary to advice in Paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy CS21 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Policy SP18 of the Submission Site Allocations and Policies DPD (2013). 19 7. The application is accompanied by traffic data which the highway authority considers to be unreliable, the access lacks adequate width, the new southern access lacks adequate visibility for an access outside the 30mph limit and the proposal would be likely to result in standing traffic on a section of highway in a rural area, to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is thereby contrary to the advice in Para 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, saved Policies HT4, HT5 and HT6 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and Policy SP14 of the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD (2103). Site & Surroundings 1. The site is located in open countryside to the south of the village of Caldecott. The land here is designated Particularly Attractive Countryside in the Rutland Local Plan. The site adjoins the Planned Limit to Development as defined in the Rutland Local Plan and the Submission Site Allocations and Polices DPD. 2. The site comprises open fields including field hedges and trees. There is some historic ridge and furrow on the site. The Eye Brook runs through the site. The site is generally behind a high roadside hedge. The site is around 3ha in total although only 1.6ha is included within the red line site for the purposes of this application.