Agenda item

The planning application was for the proposed demolition of farm buildings on land to the east of Manor Farm, Nene Way, Sutton and the construction of five dwellings with associated works.

The main considerations set out in the reports were:

·         Principle of development

·         Minerals Safeguarding Area

·         Residential amenity

·         Access and highway implications

·         Character of the area and impact on the Conservation Area

·         Impact on the Listed Building

·         Trees, landscape and ecology

·         Archaeology

·         Sustainability

·         Permitted Development “fall-back” position

·         Developer contributions

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in the report.

The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         Two of the proposed dwellings would front Nene Way, the remaining dwellings would front the new access road.

·         The proposal fell partway outside the village boundary. The boundary had been recently reviewed by an inspector and it had been concluded that the boundary line remain unchanged.

·         The site was situated in a minerals safeguarding area and adjacent to a conservation area.

·         There were a number of agricultural buildings on site, which it was considered blocked the view of the listed building. The chimney of the listed building was believed to be a key feature.

·         Pre-application advice had been provided by the conservation officer in 2013. It was considered in this advice that the replacement of agriculture buildings with permanent dwellings would be positive. This advice was only binding for one year, which had now passed. However, as there had been no change to policy since this advice, it was felt it important to stand by the comments.

·         It was noted that the listed building was ‘set off’ against the agricultural buildings, however the nature of the agricultural building was not part of the listed building setting.

Councillor Holdich, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The development would extend beyond the village envelope and into the countryside. The proposal was not an essential rural activity and was not appropriate within a mineral safeguarding area.

·         The nearby Manor Farm housed livestock and would result in noise and other impacts on the proposed dwellings due to the farmyard use.

·         There would be a resulting impact on the nearby listed buildings. The scale of the proposed dwellings would be detrimental and visually intrusive.

·         The proposal was contrary to a number of Council policies.

Peter Lee, Vice-Chairman of Sutton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The applicants should adhere to the village envelope. The breach of this boundary was not justified by the removal of the old agricultural buildings, this could be achieved with just a frontage development.

·         The development would have a negative impact on the setting of Manor House and would be visually unattractive.

·         Development in the area should be in keeping with the traditional style of the area. A cul-de-sac development would not be so.

·         A disproportionate amount of weight had been given to pre-application guidance. It was believed that the views submitted after the application was made should be given greater consideration.

·         Sutton residents were not opposed to suitable development in the area. A smaller, frontage development would be considered more appropriate.

Mike Sibthorp addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Sibthorp was speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Scriven of Manor Farm.

·         It was considered that a modest frontage development within the village envelope would be acceptable in principle and could secure the removal of the agricultural buildings.

·         The proposal was harmful to the setting of a listed building and would result in poor amenity for the proposed residents.

·         A lengthy objection had been submitted by the current Conservation Officer, which had not been included in the report.

·         Mr Sibthorp objected on seven key grounds; location beyond village envelope, scale, form and layout, harm to Manor Farm setting, out of keeping with character of the area, no heritage impact assessment provided, overbearing impact on residential amenity, proximity to farm yard.

·         Mr Sibthorp advised that a frontage development a sufficient distance away from the farm yard would not to be impacted so significantly.

Richard Dunnett, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The site had been vacant for significant period and had fallen into disrepair.

·         A solely frontage development would be impractical, as the dwellings would have oversized gardens.

·         Discussion had taken place with the Parish Council and Council Planning Officers, and had resulted in a reduction in the number of dwellings and an improvement in the proposed outlook.

·         All the development bar the access road was within the village envelope, this was believed to be justified by the current nature of the site and the planning gain of the development.

·         The Conservation Officer gave advice in 2014 with suggested improvements. This suggestions were incorporated into the application.

·         It was commented that the distance from neighbouring properties was over what was required.

The Committee were sympathetic to the comments of the objectors. It was considered by the Committee that there were a number of sound planning reasons why this application should be refused. It was suggested that the proposal was overbearing and not in keeping with the surrounding area. The Committee expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the development on the setting of a listed buildings. Concern was also raised over the breach of the village envelope by the proposal.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, contrary to officer recommendation for the reasons of the development being outside the village envelope, within a Minerals Safeguarding Area, not in keeping with the character of the area, the lack of a heritage impact assessment and the overbearing impact. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

Reasons for the decision

·         Part of the application site fell outside the settlement envelope as defined by the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012) under Policy SA4 of the Peterborough Site Allocations DPD (April 2012) and was therefore located in open countryside. The proposal was for general residential development and therefore was contrary to the provisions of Policy CS1 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011) as it was not a form of housing which was supported by the policy.

·         Part of the application site was located within a Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) and whilst the dwellings themselves were located outside the MSA, their proximity to the MSA would result in the extraction in the locality being compromised as it would bring residential development closer to the MSA than was the case now. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy CS26 of the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals & Waste Core Strategy.

·         The dominant nature of the built form of the village was frontage development in spacious plots with individual building designs. The village had Conservation Area status but the application was not accompanied by a heritage statement as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. The proposal was at odds with this given its backland nature and similarly designed properties. Consequently the proposal would not be in keeping with key characteristics of the Conservation Area and would be detrimental to it including in terms of views in to and within the Conservation Area itself. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011) and Policy PP3 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012) and para 61 (see also para 64) and 133 of the NPPF.

·         Adjacent to the site was a Grade II Listed building but the application was not accompanied by a heritage statement as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF. The proposed development would have a significant impact on the Listed building itself and also on its setting as a result of the siting, form, mass and design of the development. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy CS16 and CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy (February 2011) and Policy PP3 and PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012) and para 61 (see also para 64) and 133 of the NPPF.

·         The proximity of the proposed development to the existing amenity area of the adjacent Manor would result in a loss of privacy and would have an overbearing relationship. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (December 2012).