Planning Appeal by Mr & Mrs Meiklejohn Grounds Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 2015 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS) (WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED) PLANNING APPEAL BY MR & MRS MEIKLEJOHN Against the Refusal of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council to Grant Planning Permission FOR Erection of a Detached Dwelling with Associated Access and Landscaping AT White Cottage, Newtown, Newbury, Hampshire, RG20 9AP GROUNDS OF APPEAL STATEMENT by Mr M Williams DipTP MRTPI on Behalf of the Appellants MARCH 2019 Brimble, Lea & Partners Ema 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 My name is Matt Williams and I am a Partner of Brimble, Lea & Partners. I hold a Post-Graduate Diploma in Town & Country Planning and am a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. 1.2 I have been practicing as a Planner since 1999 with a significant amount of experience gained in the public sector where I have operated as a case officer at different levels, before serving as Head of Planning for four years immediately prior to joining Brimble, Lea & Partners in 2015. As a case officer, I dealt with a significant number of different proposals and, as Head of Planning, I was responsible for the strategic and operational management of the Council’s planning service and dealt with major, controversial and complex planning applications. 1.3 I joined Brimble, Lea & Partners as a Planning Consultant in October 2015 and became a Partner of the Practice in May 2017. Since October 2015, I have been advising clients, submitting planning applications and lodging appeals for a range of major and minor development schemes. I am widely experienced in all aspects of development management, planning policy and the enforcement of planning control, and I have an in-depth knowledge of planning legislation, policy and procedure. 1.4 The evidence which I present in this Statement for the Appeal is true and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution, and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions. I have visited the appeal site and have a good understanding of the local area. 2.0 APPEAL SITE AND PROPOSAL Appeal Site 2.1 This appeal relates to an area of garden within the curtilage of White Cottage, immediately adjacent to the C.45 road on the edge of Newtown. The appeal site is relatively level and measures approximately 0.06 hectares. The site is bounded by Jasmine Cottage to the south, the Appellants’ property White Cottage to the east, an area of open land associated with Newtown Court - 2 - Farm to the north and open countryside to the west. A location plan is provided with the appeal submission and photographs of the appeal site are provided in Appendix 1 of this Statement. Appeal Proposal 2.2 The appeal proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling. 2.3 The proposed dwelling is predominantly single storey with an element of first floor accommodation to provide a 3-bedroom dwelling. Externally, the proposed dwelling will have vertical timber boarding and through coloured rendered walls with powder coated aluminium windows and doors, underneath mono-pitched slate roofing. Solar panels will be installed on the south elevation to match the slate roof. 2.4 The proposed dwelling will be served by an existing vehicular access to White Cottage and a new driveway will be formed off this access to serve the existing and proposed dwellings. 3.0 THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY 3.1 This Appeal relates to an application for full planning permission that was refused by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, being the Local Planning Authority (LPA), under powers delegated to officers on 20 December 2018. The decision notice issued by the LPA and the Case Officer Report, which formed the basis of the decision, is provided in Appendix 2 of this Statement. For convenience, the LPA’s reasons for refusing planning permission were as follows: 1. The application has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria to be considered as an exception to the general policy of restraint of housing in the countryside. There is no justification within Development Plan Policy, or any other material consideration that establishes the principle of development, or is considered to be of sufficient weight for bringing development forward on this site. The proposal is not considered to - 3 - represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029. 2. The proposed design of the dwelling by virtue of its, scale, bulk, massing, fenestration patterns, materials and roof design, would appear out of keeping with the character of the area. The design would not have due regard to the sites sense of place, distinctiveness or setting. Therefore in this regard, the proposal does not represent a high quality development and is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Sections 8 and 9 of the Design and Sustainability SPD 2018 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT Development Plan 4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) require Local Planning Authorities to determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 4.2 The Development Plan consists of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2029 that was adopted on the 26th May 2016. The following Development Plan Policies are considered to be relevant to this Application:- Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development); Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing); Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside); Policy CN9 (Transport); Policy EM1 (Landscape); Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation); Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk); - 4 - Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use); Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development); Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment). 4.3 Other Material Planning Considerations Chapters 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019); Planning Practice Guidance; Basingstoke and Deane Supplementary Planning Documents (Design and Sustainability, Parking Standards, Landscape and Biodiversity, and Planning Obligations for Infrastructure). 5.0 PLANNING MERITS OF THE APPEAL PROPOSAL Main Issues 5.1 Based on the LPA’s reasons for refusing planning permission, the main issues with this appeal are: Whether the proposed dwelling would be on previously developed land and therefore supported by Development Plan Policy SS6 as a matter of principle; and The effect of the proposed development upon the character of the area; 5.2 The LPA did not object in relation to other material planning considerations and it is therefore common ground between the Appellants and LPA that the appeal proposal complies with development plan policies in respect of the historic environment, the amenity of local residents and the safety of highway users. Principle of a New Dwelling on the Appeal Site 5.3 The appeal site is located outside any defined Settlement Policy Boundaries (SPB) in the adopted Local Plan. Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) sets out how new housing will be provided and states that sites - 5 - outside defined SPB will be considered to lie in the countryside. The appeal site is outside any SPB and is therefore treated as being in the countryside. 5.4 Notwithstanding, Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) states that development proposals for new housing outside of SPB will only be permitted within certain categories identified as (a) – (g), as set out below. “Policy SS6 – New Housing in the Countryside Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context; or b) For a rural exception site for affordable housing; or c) For the re-use of a redundant or disused permanent building provided that the proposal: iv) Does not require substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration; and v) Does not result in the requirement for another building to fulfil the function of the building being converted; and vi) Leads to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or d) For a replacement dwelling that is not temporary in nature, or an extension to an existing dwelling provided that: vii) The size of the proposal would be appropriate to the plot; and viii) It would not be significantly visually intrusive in the landscape; or e) Small scale8 residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that: ix) It is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development; and x) The development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual quality; and xi) The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties; or f) For a new dwelling linked to an existing and viable agricultural, forestry, horse breeding and training, livery or equivalent rural business, where it can be shown that: xii) There is an essential need for the occupant to be on site at any time during any 24 hour period; and xiii) No alternative suitable accommodation is available in the locality; and xiv) The rural business linked to the proposed new building must have been viable for the previous three years; or g) Allocated for development in a Neighbourhood Plan which has been ‘made’ by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.