DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 23rd AUGUST 2021 Case No: 20/00164/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION) Proposal: OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RURAL EXCEPTIONS HOUSING FOR UP TO 18 DWELLINGS WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED, EXCEPT ACCESS. Location: LAND WEST OF WYCHWOOD CHURCH END HILTON Applicant: MR PETER AND EVELYN BURTON AND MR JON KNIGHT Grid Ref: 528899 265874 Date of Registration: 24.01.2020 Parish: HEMINGFORD GREY RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the Parish Council's recommendation of refusal is contrary to the officer recommendation of approval. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This application site is located to the south of the village of Hilton, immediately south of Church End. The site comprises approximately 1.16 hectares of agricultural land with residential development to the north and east (along Church End). Potton Road (B1040) is located to the west of the site and open agricultural land extends to the south. The application site currently forms part of a much larger agricultural field and is contained by an existing tree belt to the south, with established trees and hedging to the east. 1.2 There is a footpath on the opposite side of Church End (opposite the site) with streetlights and provides a footpath link through to the village shop and public house. 1.3 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 as designated within the Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2017 and on the Environment Agency Maps for Flooding. 1.4 The site is classified as Grade 2 agricultural land, falling within the categories that are considered the best and most versatile agricultural land. 1.5 The site does not lie within a Conservation Area and there are no listed buildings in close proximity to the site. 1.6 Outline planning permission is sought for up to 18 dwellings and access at this time. Details of the layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping are matters reserved for future consideration. 1.7 The application seeks approval for up to 18 dwellings including affordable housing with 60% net of the site area for the affordable dwellings (equates to 9 to 12 affordable dwellings, final numbers to be determined at reserved matters stage) to meet a local need and to be prioritised for people with a local connection. The application is accompanied by indicative site layout plans. The indicative/suggested housing mix of the dwellings shown on these plans in terms of types and sizes is as follows: 6 x 2 Bed which equates to 33% of the site area; 8 x 3 Bed equating to 44% of the site area; and 4 x 4 Bed equating to 22% of the site area. 1.8 The published Housing Needs Survey Results for Hilton identifies a need for 5 affordable dwellings to meet the local affordable housing needs. The quantum of affordable homes shown on the submitted indicative plans therefore exceeds the identified local affordable housing need. The application scheme therefore proposes to meet part of the identified affordable housing need arising within the nearby small settlements of Hemingford Grey, Hemingford Abbots and Great Paxton. Hemingford Grey has an identified local need for 12 affordable homes. Hemingford Abbots has an identified local need for 4 affordable homes. Great Paxton has an identified local need for 3 affordable homes however it was considered that given the distance between Great Paxton and Hilton, Great Paxton should not be considered as part of the application. As the application proposes to contribute towards the identified local affordable housing need for Hemingford Abbots and Hemingford Grey consultation has been undertaken with the Parish Council for each of these small settlements. 1.9 The scheme includes the provision of improvements and widening of Church End and new footway link to connect the development to the existing footpaths that run along the opposite side of Church End and through to the local public house and shop. 1.10 The application is submitted as a Rural Exceptions housing scheme and is accompanied by the following reports and documents: * Indicative Area Plan * Indicative Site Layout * Opportunities for Constraints Diagram * Preliminary Site Access General Arrangement * Indicative Landscape Strategy * Location Plan * Indicative 3d Massing Aerial View * Drainage Ditch Sections 1-21 and 22-40 * Long Sections * Preliminary Site Access and Sections Details * Preliminary Site Access Vehicle Tracking * Topographical Survey * Supplemental Planning Statement * Preliminary Ecological Appraisal * Arboricultural Impact Assessment * Transport Statement * Design and Access Statement * FRA & Surface Water Drainage Strategy * Landscape Statement * Planning Statement 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (20th July 2021) (NPPF 2021) sets out the three objectives - economic, social and environmental - of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF 2021 at paragraph 10 provides as follows: 'So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).' 2.2 The NPPF 2021 sets out the Government's planning policies for (amongst other things): • delivering a sufficient supply of homes; • building a strong, competitive economy; • achieving well-designed, beautiful and safe places; • conserving and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. 2.3 Planning Practice Guidance and the National Design Guide are also relevant and are material considerations in the determination of this application. For full details visit the government website National Guidance 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 (Adopted 15th May 2019) • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for development • LP3: Green Infrastructure • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP5: Flood Risk • LP6: Waste Water Management • LP9: Small Settlements • P10: The Countryside • LP11: Design Context • LP12: Design Implementation • LP14: Amenity • LP15: Surface Water • LP16: Sustainable Travel • LP17: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP24: Affordable Housing Provision • LP25: Housing Mix • LP28: Rural Exceptions Housing • LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP34: Heritage Settings and their Settings • LP37: Ground Contamination and Groundwater Pollution 3.2 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2017) including the following chapters: Indicative Area Plan Indicative Site Layout 1 Introduction: 1.6 Design principles 2.1 Context and local distinctiveness 2.5 Landscape character areas 2.7 Architectural character 3.5 Parking/ servicing 3.6 Landscape and Public Realm 3.7 Building Form 3.8 Building Detailing 4.1 Implementation • Developer Contributions SPD (2011) • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • Annual Monitoring Report - Part 1 (Housing) November 2020 • RECAP CCC Waste Management Design Guide (CCC SPD) 2012 Local For full details visit the government website Local policies 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 19/70150/PENQ - Erection of 20 Dwellings and new access onto Church End - Officers considered the site to be well related to the settlement but did not support the proposals which were submitted with only 40% affordable housing. Officers also identified landscape harm 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Hilton Parish Council - Full comments have been added to the end of the report, and objections have been summarised below: Commented: "I understand the application was submitted under rural exception housing with regards to the housing needs of the Hemingford villages. This was not specified in the letter I received or on the website but was evident from the Parish Council meeting. We should have been notified of this specific reason so we could comment appropriately. I therefore wish to make the following additional points to the general comment we previously submitted". o There are no parish links between the villages o There are no sustainable travel links between the villages. In fact, the two are separate by a major 6 lane motorway. o The distance between the parishes is not walkable o The bus service is poor o Anybody occupying the housing will need a car o Hilton has far fewer facilities than the Hemingford's, or the more obvious choice for development, St Ives. For example, there is no village school. In conclusion, I feel that attempting to meet the housing needs of the Hemingford villages with a development in Hilton, given that the villages are not connected in any meaningful or sustainable way, is extremely tenuous. 5.2 A further consultation was sent to Hilton Parish Council specifically consulting on the application with regards to the proposals meeting affordable housing needs for other nearby settlements and in particular Hemingford Grey and Hemingford Abbots. On the 8th of January, Hilton Parish Council made the following summarised objections in this regard: o Rejected the application on the basis that it does not comply with the new Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 o The application does not meet the exception criteria for policy LP28 o "The site is productive grade 2 farmland and clearly relates more closely to (and is the same as), the surrounding farmland, than it does to the built-up area of the village. In addition, prior to the Local Plan to 2036, the village had a designated boundary line that ran along the ditch between the proposed site and Church End. This field, (the proposed site), was never considered to be part of the village and its built-up area". o Hilton Parish Council conducted a Housing needs Survey in 2016 which identified a potential housing need for 5 houses, which they were advised by HDC was not enough to make such a scheme viable. The applicant has attempted to discredit this survey in sections 5.20 and 5.22 of their supplemental planning statement, however their method of statistical analysis is problematic. Their implication to the date ay be extrapolated as there was only a 25% response rate is assumptive and erroneous.