Agenda item

Report Of The Head of Development Management– Community Development  Services  

Considered :-

The Head of Development Management - Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for outline planning application for 25 plots for self and custom-build residential development and associated works (all matters reserved including access) at land off James Lane, Tunstall, North Yorkshire.

Note: In response to Cllr Foster’s declaration that there had been lobbying during the site visit, the Chair and Cllr Moorhouse declared they felt they had not been lobbied during the site visit.

The Planning Officer summarised the report and update report which had been published to the Council website as item 5a of the agenda pack. The Officer advised that the issue with drainage and flooding was the lack of information to prove there was a suitable place to discharge surface water; either via infiltration testing or surveys of the ditch/ waterway running along the sites northern boundary.

The applicant’s agent, Jason Tait, spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:-

·        The remoteness of the development in relation to nearby amenities.

·        That the development would not look in situ next to the nearby garage and barracks.

·        Whether self-build and custom-build houses were compatible with what the area needed.

·        Members sought clarity on the development limit, and how the site was situated in relation to its boundary. The Officer explained that the limit had been carried forward from the previous Local Plan and that the policy required new developments’ to be near or adjacent to this limit. The Officer directed Members towards where the limit of the policy area and strategic growth direction was, and concluded the site stood outside of these areas.

·        In response to Member questions on flood risk and mitigation the Officer stated there was not enough information at that moment to guarantee whether there could or could not be a suitable water attenuation area on the site.

·        That the road posed a danger to the footpath as it was too narrow.

·        The reasons for the absence of an affordable housing plan in the application. The Officer explained that an affordable housing plan could be submitted by the applicant in the heads of terms or included in the covering letter or planning statement. The decision to develop these plans further was dependent on whether the principle of development was first deemed acceptable. In this case, the application being considered did not include an affordable housing plan at this outline stage.

The Decision :-

That planning permission be REFUSED.

The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as set out below:-

1. The application site is located outside and not adjacent to the development limits or the built up extent of Catterick Garrison, and is within the open countryside. The site is a located a significant distance from the nearest services and facilities within Catterick Garrison as well as the nearest transport links. As such, the site is considered to be an unsustainable location for new residential development with any future occupiers being heavily reliant on the car to access services, education and employment. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP2, SP4, and CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan adopted 2014 as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 including paragraph 11(d.ii).

2. The proposed development of 25no. dwellings would result in significant encroachment into the surrounding countryside. The development would result in harm to character and appearance of the open countryside surrounding Catterick Garrison, and would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policies CP3 and CP8 which seek to protect the character and quality of local landscapes and the wider countryside, as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 in this respect.

3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the minimum footway width can be achieved along the proposed footpath link on James Lane from the application site. As the necessary technical information has not been submitted, it has not been demonstrated that the proposals would not be detrimental to highway safety within the surrounding area. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the provisions of adopted Local Page 48 15 Plan Policices CP3 and CP4; together with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

4. Policies CP2 (Responding to Climate Change) and CP3 (Achieving Sustainable Development) require all new development to be designed to minimise flood risk elsewhere by incorporating Sustainable Drainage Schemes (SuDS), unless SuDS would prove impractical. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the scheme would achieve adequate drainage provision. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP2 and CP3 in this regard as well as the national planning guidance with regard`s to this matter.

5. No affordable housing is proposed nor an economic viability appraisal submitted demonstrating affordable housing provision is not viable. As such the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy CP6.

Voting Record

A vote was taken and the motion was carried unanimously.