DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 20th AUGUST 2018 Case No: 17/02513/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) Proposal: THE ERECTION OF THREE 4 BEDROOM DWELLINGS Location: LAND OPPOSITE 91 ERMINE STREET, LITTLE STUKELEY Applicant: MAXINE ROBINSON Grid Ref: 520667 275714 Date of Registration: 13.12.2017 Parish: THE STUKELEYS RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE This application is reported to the Development Management Committee (DMC) as it is a 'departure from the Development Plan' and The Stukeleys Parish Council's recommendation of refusal is contrary to the Officer's recommendation of approval. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This application relates to a largely rectangular parcel of land measuring approx. 72m x 35.5m on the north side of Ermine Street, Little Stukeley. The submitted Design and Access statement (Fox-AD: November 2017) identifies that the land is currently used to accommodate small farmyard animals. The site is outside the built up area of Little Stukeley (hence the scheme being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan), however, a section of the site lies opposite existing dwellings on the south side of Ermine Street. 1.2 A significant belt of established trees defines the boundary to the south of the application site. Post and wire mesh fencing coupled with less dense planting comprises the boundaries to the north, east and west, with fields beyond. Residential units (85-91 Ermine St) are located approximately 25m to the south and the Alconbury Weald site lies approx. 190m to the west. 1.3 The site is location in Flood Zone 1 of the LPA's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2017). 1.4 The proposal is for the erection of three 4 bedroom dwellings. 1.5 This planning application has been advertised as 'departure' from the Development Plan as the proposed development is considered to be contrary to 1995 Local Plan policies EN17 and H23. The application must be considered against the Development Plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations should be taken into account as part of the assessment of the proposal, and as part of the planning balance. 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (24th July 2018) (NPPF 2018) sets out the three economic, social and environmental objectives of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF confirms that 'So sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for: * delivering a sufficient supply of homes; * achieving well-designed places; * conserving and enhancing the natural environment; * conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 2.2 Whilst the NPPF 2018 has now been published and replaces the NPPF 2012, transitional arrangements are in place for authorities who have submitted Local Plans submissions prior to the 29 January 2019 and to ensure consistency, the 2012 framework policies will continue to be relevant. For clarity HDC submitted their Local Plan on 29 March 2018. 2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for: * promoting sustainable transport; * delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; * requiring good design; * conserving and enhancing the natural environment; * conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 2.4 In this report, reference to both NPPF 2012 and 2018 from here-on referred to as 'the NPPF'. For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities- and-local-government 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) • H23: Housing Development Outside Settlements • H31: Residential Privacy and Amenity Standards • EN17: Development in the Countryside • EN18: Protection of Countryside Features • EN20: Landscaping Scheme • EN25: General Design Criteria • T18: Access Requirements for New Development 3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) • HL5: Good Design and Layout • HL10: Housing Provision 3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) • CS1: Sustainable Development in Huntingdonshire • CS3: The Settlement Hierarchy 3.4 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP6: Waste Water Management • LP10: Small Settlements • LP11: The Countryside • LP12: Design Context • LP13: Design Implementation • LP15: Amenity • LP16: Surface Water • LP17: Sustainable Travel • LP18: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP26: Housing Mix • LP33: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows 3.5 The LPA consider the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. Footnote 22 of NPPF 2018 states during the transitional period for emerging plans submitted for examination (set out in paragraph 214 of NPPF 2018), consistency should be tested against the previous Framework published in March 2012. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF 2012. Given the transitional arrangements in place it is considered that if there is any tension between emerging policies and NPPF 2018 the previous framework policies will prevail. 3.6 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF advises that policies in emerging plans can be given weight from the day of publication according to: *The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); *The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and *The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 3.7 Supplementary Planning Documents: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2017 • Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2011) • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007 Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 None relevant to the determination of this application. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Stukeleys Parish Council (04 July 2018): "Recommend refusal because Little Stukeley is identified as an 'infill village' in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan and further identified as a 'small settlement' in the draft local plan. The proposed development is outside of the village environmental limits and none of the conditions apply that would qualify this site for countryside development. Additionally, the proposed development is part of the area considered to be important buffer between Little Stukeley and Alconbury Weald. 5.2 The Stukeleys Parish Council (15 May 2018): As above. 5.3 The Stukeleys Parish Council (09 January 2018): As above. Officer comment: The issues raised by the Stukeleys Parish Council are addressed in the main body of the report. 5.4 CCC Highways: The access, location and visibility are in accordance with the speed of the road and now remote from the adjacent access and far enough away from the island not to be considered an issue. Internal geometry looks to be adequate with regards to turning and parking. Given the above […] no further objections [subject to a number of conditions]. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Six representations have been received, objecting to the proposal and highlighting concerns relating to: *Site is outside the built up area and is viewed as open countryside in the Development Plan - not an infill site *Proposal is contrary to H23, HL5, EN17 and LP11 *Site does not relate well to the existing settlement *Detrimental impact on highway safety, primarily through intensification of use of access *Parcel of land comprises a part of an important buffer between the village and Alconbury Weald *Proposed dwellings do not comply with paragraph 55 of the NPPF *Overdevelopment - Little Stukeley has no need for additional properties of this size *Site is unsuitable for properties of this size *Negative impact on view and appearance of entry to village *Approval would set an undesirable precedent *Loss of green space, resulting in a detrimental impact on visual amenity *Existing use (small holding) could continue if permission was not granted *No benefit to existing community of Little Stukeley; *Hedge area is part of the road, not the site leading to complications with shared access *No provision for affordable housing *Out of character with surroundings *Proximity to Conservation Area *Inconsistent with current traffic calming measures *Lack of notification for village residents Officer response: Paragraph 55 of the 2012 NPPF referred to isolated homes in the countryside. The revised NPPF (2018) addresses the same issue in paragraph 79. The application site is not considered to represent an isolated location given the proximity to the built-up area of Little Stukeley. With regards to potentially setting a precedent, each case should be assessed on its merits