Date of Expiry of Statutory Period : 09 November 2012

ITEM NO: Location: 8 Dark Lane, Sandon, Buntingford, SG9 0QT 7

Applicant: Mrs M Miller

Proposal: One detached 3 bedroom dwelling.

Ref.No: 12/02128/ 1

Officer: Richard Tiffin

Date of expiry of statutory period : 09 November 2012

Reason for Delay

Committee cycle

Reason for Referral to Committee

Cllr Jarvis has called the application in to be considered and determined by the Committee

1.0 Relevant History

1.1 Some pre-application advice was given on this site regarding the principle of development.

2.0 Policies

2.1 North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no.2 with Alterations 1996 7 – Selected Villages beyond the Green Belt; 55 – Car Parking Standards; 57 – Residential Guidelines and Standards.

2.2 Other policy advice:

SPD – Vehicle Parking Provisions at New Development; SPD – Planning Obligations; SPD - Design NPPF Sections 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes); 7(Design).

3.0 Representations

3.1 Sandon PC - No objection

3.2 Hertfordshire Highways - No objection

3.3 Local Residents - The occupiers of 9 and 10 Dark Lane and Beckfield Farm have all written in support of the application as have the occupiers of 'Grassmere' Mill End, 1 Payne End and Beckfield Farm Cottage.

3.4 Service Providers - Halls and Community element of SPD required only.

PLANNING CONTROL (27.11.12) 4.0 Planning Considerations

4.1 Site & Surroundings

4.1.1 The application site currently comprises the gardens of No 8 and No 6 Dark Lane. The application site comprises approximately 2/3 of the existing curtilage of No 8 and 1/3 No 6. A new 1.8m panel fence would be erected along the full length of the new plot running back from Dark Lane with a 900mm fence forward of the new property to the Dark Lane boundary.

4.2 Proposal

4.2.1 The proposed dwelling is a specified as a modest detached property measuring 8m deep by 3.6m wide. It would have 3 bedrooms.

4.2.2 The new detached property would be approximately 3m from the flank of No 6 and 4 m from No 8. It would be of similar height to the properties either side and is specified with a flying hipped roof, dormers and small front porch. Parking will be provided in the front garden and the existing access to No 8 will be utilised. The DAS indicates that a No 8 will have a new access. However, this does not form part of this application.

4.3 Key Issues

4.3.1 Sandon is a Selected Village (Policy 7) in the Local Plan and as such development is acceptable within the policy boundary subject to the detailed issues of design and access and general compatibility with surroundings. It should be noted at this point that Policy 7 is a saved policy under the outgoing local plan and these policies were adopted before 2004. Accordingly, limited weight can be attributed to them - the balance of weight falling on the NPPF (The Framework) and any emerging policies which are in accordance with the Framework. Core Strategy Policy C (Settlement Hierarchy) does identify some of the Districts smaller villages for modest levels of development, particularly to support primary schools in those settlements. The preferred wording being:

"Other development will be allowed within the boundaries of the villages of Ashwell, Barkway, Barley, Breachwood Green, Graveley, Great Offley, Hexton, Ickleford, Kimpton, Little Wymondley, Oaklands (part), Pirton, Preston, Reed, Sandon, St Ippolyts (inc. Gosmore), Therfield, Weston and Whitwell, which will be defined on the proposals map."

4.3.2 Members will be aware that in a recent appeal decision in Reed (also identified above) the Inspector dismissed an appeal for housing development on the basis that Reed did not have the necessary services and facilities to accommodate further development without being heavily reliant on private car use. To allow a proposal for 13 dwellings in these circumstances, he opined, would be to promote an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to the aims of the Framework. This is also true of Sandon, as like Reed both settlements only have limited facilities including a primary school. The question then is what weight to attach to the current saved Policy 7 for Sandon (which would support the principle of development within the selected village boundary) and the competing arguments now surfacing around recent interpretations of the Framework, including that offered by the Inspector at Reed?

4.3.3 The identification of rural settlements for modest levels of growth, compatible with supporting existing primary schools and safeguarding the character of our villages, is likely to be a key policy theme of the emerging local plan. Indeed it is likely that PLANNING CONTROL (27.11.12) such a policy would be broadly similar to Core Strategy Policy C - a policy which has already been the subject of wider public consultation. Such an approach would be consistent in my view with the aims of the Framework in seeking to secure the viability of rural (identified) settlements by, at the very least, supporting the continued presence of a primary school. The difference between Sandon and Reed at present is that the former has benefited from 'selected' village status for many years whereas the status of Reed as an 'identified' settlement, with a defined boundary, is yet to be confirmed - a process which the appeal Inspector recently attached significant importance:

"In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the fact that Reed is being considered in the Core Strategy as a settlement into which some expansion may be permitted. That process will enable all options to be considered in a wider context and permit a plan led approach to any such development in accordance with the first of the core planning principles in paragraph 17 of the Framework. If the proposed development were allowed to proceed before the wider picture has been considered it may prejudice proper planning. For this reason I consider it would be premature and prejudicial to allow it to proceed when the matter is under active consideration as part of a plan led approach."

Summary:

The saved policies in the local plan relating to settlement boundaries for villages should be attributed some weight but as they were conceived without reference to sustainability as currently defined by the Framework, the current definition of sustainability also needs to be taken into account. This said, there is a degree of compatibility between saved policy in this case (Selected Villages - Policy 7) , emerging policy (Core Strategy, Policy C) and the aims of the Framework in that an approach based on allowing limited growth around key rural services, such as primary schools, is likely to be consistent with the NPPF as a matter of principle. The key however centres on the word 'limited' as any development of a more significant nature would almost certainly offend key social and environmental sustainability criteria including heavy reliance on private transport to access essential services and facilities. Moreover, any approach to growth should be plan led and conscious - a point made forcefully by the Reed Inspector. This process of informed and consensual settlement identification (plan led) is already well underway (Policy C) but is as of yet incomplete. This said, it is likely that the boundary for Sandon will remain much as it is now. Accordingly, sites such as the one currently under consideration will continue to be appropriate, in principle, for small scale development of the kind proposed.

4.3.4 The application site occupies a space between two buildings which form part of a planned layout of dwellings built originally by the Local Authority between the wars. Any new development which is being proposed in such a well ordered and planned scheme must therefore be considered in that context. The wider area around Rushden Road, Payne End and Dark Lane is typified by a planned group of these inter-war dwellings, mostly semi's, with a generous amount space around them, including ample back gardens. Many of the properties have been extended over the years and a new dwelling has been introduced in the recent past adjacent to the side of No 4 Rushden Road. This said, a key element of the area is its sense of space characterised as it is by generous gaps between blocks of housing. The proposal seeks to develop between one of these spaces and this will, in my view, not only erode the quality of the originally conceived layout but invite applications to carry out similar development elsewhere in the locality, notably off Payne End. Further, the introduction of a dwelling in the space between No 8 and No 6 will also bring with it increased parking forward of the building line impacting negatively on the street scene in Dark Lane. Members will now be familiar with the benchmark test for design set out in the Framework at paragraph 64: PLANNING CONTROL (27.11.12) "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions."

4.3.5 Appreciating that design is largely a subjective consideration, I am unable to conclude that the introduction of a small detached dwelling in the space between these two planned blocks of buildings, on an 'estate' of similarly spacious homes, would amount to an improvement in the character of the area. Rather it is my judgement that such development would appear contrived and cramped and as a consequence incongruous in an area where the space around and between buildings is a positive characteristic. Moreover, such development would be likely to invite further applications of a similar nature the impact of which would be to the overall detriment of the area. Accordingly, I am reluctantly unable to reconcile the proposal with the paragraph 64 test in the Framework.

4.3.6 Much support has been offered locally to the applicant's in this case, much of it citing their long standing residency of the village and the need to help local families stay in Sandon through the provision of affordable housing. While the proposal would of course enable the applicant to provide additional accommodation for their family in the short term, it cannot be defined as 'affordable' in that its market value (and therefore its availability to families on lower incomes) could not be controlled in perpetuity.

4.3.7 The application was not accompanied by a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) - a requirement of the Council's adopted SPD. I have no reason to believe that the applicant would be resistant to submitting such an undertaking and should the Committee resolve to grant permission contrary to the recommendation set out below, I would suggest that such a resolution be subject to the receipt of satisfactory UU.

4.4 Conclusion

4.4.1 I have some sympathy with the applicant's desire to provide accessible housing for their family, in a village with which they have a long standing association. However, the proposal if granted would not remain 'affordable' in perpetuity and could be sold on the open market at any time. Accordingly, I can not attribute much weight to 'affordability' as a compensating factor to what I consider to be a scheme which would fail to meet the high design standard set by paragraph 64 of the Framework.

5.0 Legal Implications

5.1 In making decisions on applications submitted under the Town and Country Planning legislation, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. The decision must be in accordance with the plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. Where the decision is to refuse or restrictive conditions are attached, the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision.

PLANNING CONTROL (27.11.12) 6.0 Recommendation

6.1 That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its uncharacteristic form and siting, relative to the established planned and spacious nature of surrounding development, would appear cramped and uncomfortable to the detriment of the overall character of the area. Moreover, the unavoidable intensification of parking in the front garden of the property would be injurious to the street scene in Dark Lane. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the aims of Policy 57 of the Local Plan and paragraph 64 of the NPPF.

2. The application makes inadequate provision for the mitigation of the impact associated with the proposed development as required by the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) : Planning Obligations. This seeks contributions to support local infrastructure, services or facilities arising from the development consistent with the advice on encouraging sustainable development set out in the NPPF. As such the proposal would fail to comply with Policy 51 (Development Effects and Planning Gain) of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 with Alterations.

PLANNING CONTROL (27.11.12)