Broadland District Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEAL BY: Mr Kevin Cossey and Miss Deborah High against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant outline planning permission for the residential development of up to 7 self-build dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access, at Land North of Marsh Road, Halvergate, NR13 3QB. PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/K2610/W/20/3245582 LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20190827 LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY STATEMENT 1. THE APPEAL PROPOSAL 1.1 The application for planning permission to which this appeal relates was received on 17 May 2019 and declared valid on the same date. It sought outline planning permission for the erection of 7 self-build dwellings on land to the north of Marsh Road, Halvergate, with all matters reserved except from the access. The application sought to retain an existing field access off Marsh Road, positioned fairly central along the sites southern boundary. Although indicative only at this stage, the Site Plan shows an internal private drive then running to the east and west, serving four dwellings to the east and three to the west. The proposal was for each dwelling to be of a varied design, whilst following a set development limit and pallete of material. The Site Plan indicatively shows all of the dwellings to be set back the same distance into the site and orientated to front Marsh Road. Planning permission was refused on 26 July 2019. 2. THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION 2.1 This is as set out on page 1 of the determining officer’s delegated report that was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate with the appeal questionnaire. 3. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Confirmation of the planning policies that are relevant to this appeal are set out in the officer’s delegated report that was forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate with the appeal questionnaire. 3.2 It is noted that reference to the Policy RL1 of the Development Management DPD 2015 was not made in the determining officers Delegated Report Sheet and wasn’t sent over with the appeal questionnaire. This policy is relevant as the application relates to development consisting of five dwellings or more. Details of Policy RL1 can be found in appendix A of this report. Although this policy was not mentioned it is not considered that this results in any material changes to the decision made by the Local Planning Authority. 4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There is not considered to be any significantly relevant planning history on the application site. 5. EXPLANATORY COMMENTS 5.1 The Local Planning Authority (LPA) considers the main reasons for refusal for the appeal application and therefore main issues for consideration in the determination of this appeal are:- (i) The harm caused to the Conservation Area in conflict with Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), Policy EN2 of the Development Management DPD (DM DPD) and the requirements of S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990. (ii) The harm caused to the setting of the nearby listed building in conflict with Policy 2 of the JCS and the requirements of S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990. (iii) The conflict with Policies 1 and 6 of the JCS in that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be dependent on the private car to access facilities and services. (iv) The conflict with Policy GC2 of the DM DPD in that the site is located outside of any defined settlement limits, is not supported by any specific development management policies which allow for development outside of the development boundary and due to the Council being able to demonstrate a five year land supply. 5.2 In the introduction section (paragraph 1.4) of the appellant’s appeal statement, reference is made to the policies for housing being out of date; it is inferred that this is due to the appellants considering: the supply of sites in the 5YHLS not to be sufficiently justified; that the Development Plan is silent on self-build housing; and that insufficient provision is being made to address self-build demand. No other reasons have been given. The Council has addressed the issues of land supply and self-build in the below sections and Appendix C, but reserves the right to respond to any further issues raised in this respect. 5.3 In paragraph 6.24 of the appellants appeal statement it states that the Council has not mentioned Policy GC2 in their decision notice, however this is clearly sited in both the officer’s delegated report and the decision notice. 6. LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (LPA) COMMENTS 6.1 The LPA considers that the decision notice adequately sets out its position on the reasons for refusing planning permission. However, there are some additional items that the LPA would like to draw to the Inspector’s attention with regards to the following four main reasons for refusal and with regards to the appellants appeal statement. 6.2 The appellants appeal statement has discussed the first two reasons for refusal together so, for consistency, the LPA have responded in the same way. The harm caused to the conservation area and nearby listed building 6.3 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 states “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Section 72 (1) states that it is the general duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The NPPF paragraph 194 requires that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.) Paragraph 196 requires that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.” Policy 2 of the JCS says development proposals will respect local distinctiveness, including (5th paragraph) ‘the landscape character and historic environment, taking account of conservation area appraisals’. Policy EN2 of the DM DPD states that ‘in order to protect the character of the area, development proposals should have regard to the Landscape Character Assessment SPD and, in particular, consider any impact upon as well as seek to protect and enhance where appropriate (iv) Conservation Areas’. 6.4 The conservation area appraisal for Halvergate and Tunstall provides information on what are the important characteristics and aspects of the appearance of the conservation area. Although the planning statement submitted by the appellants as part of the application states that the appraisal is over five years old, it is only a requirement of section 71 of the of the Planning (listed buildings and conservation area) 1990 Act that “it shall be the duty of a local planning authority from time to time to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of their area which are conservation areas.” Considering that there has been relatively little change to the conservation area since the appraisal was written in 2007, the appraisal is still a valid reference point and material consideration to assist in determining the application. 6.5 The location and setting of Halvergate is described in the conservation area appraisal (page 3) as “though not more than sixteen miles from Norwich and eight miles from Great Yarmouth, Halvergate is relatively cut-off from outside. It is situated on the western edge of the, now drained, Great Marsh which lies between the Rivers Yare to the south and Bure to the north and stretched eastwards to Breydon Water and Great Yarmouth. There are no further villages or roads to the east, while to the south, beyond Freethorpe, travel is confined to the ferry at Reedham. Until the building of the Acle Straight and the Branch Road across the marshes, the only land line would have been westwards to Norwich via by-ways and small village, and eastwards along the Stone Road and the Fleet Dyle to Great Yarmouth.” The appraisal goes on to describe that “the sense of isolation is very apparent as one approaches the village across the marshes from the Stracey Arms, the village is set on rising ground against a backdrop of trees, in marked contrast to the flat foreground.“ It should also be noted that some of the surrounding landscape is within the Broads National Park. 6.6 The 1797 Faden’s Map on page 3 of the conservation area appraisal is useful in terms of showing the area of common land associated with the village prior to enclosure. The field and immediate area to the north of Marsh Road was within the area of common land and this explains the open spaces and relatively dispersed nature of historic dwellings in this area, as well as the clustering of dwellings elsewhere in the village where they were located around the edge of the common area. In what is generally a flat area and with the common being located on higher ground, the common would have historically provided a place of refuge for people to inhabit dwellings and a relatively safe place for their livestock to graze.