The planning application was for outline permission for up to 80 residential dwellings (including up to 30% affordable) on land to the west of Uffington Road, Barnack. The application also included the introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal open space and children’s play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access from Uffington Road, and associated ancillary works. All matters were to be reserved, with the exception of the main site access.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update report.
Councillor Over, Ward Councillor, and Councillor Bloom, Barnack Parish Council, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Councillor Bloom did not believe that the development would benefit local residents, and objected to the proposals on a number of grounds;
· The development would exceed the strategic housing requirement for the area, when considered in conjunction with the Paynesfield development;
· It was believed that the proposal would negatively impact the conservation area;
· Development outside of the village envelope was contrary to Council policy and the Village Statement;
· There was not considered to be any need for affordable housing in the village;
· It was considered that an adverse impact would be had on the views of the area, and that the speeding problems in the vicinity would increase;
· The infrastructure in the village was not thought to be sufficient;
· The proposal represented a threat to the local Badger population;
· Councillor Over believed that the development was unsuitable for the village;
· There had been no development outside the village envelope before, and it was not believed that there was any need to do so now; and
· It was suggested that existing housing was already available and that the poor public transport links in the area made it unsuitable for affordable housing.
June Woollard addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The applicant had lived in Barnack all her life;
· Mrs Woollard advised that she was not against gradual development within the village boundary, however the proposal represented significant development on agricultural land outside the village;
· It was believed that the proposal was out of proportion with the size of the village and included a footpath that was not popular within the village;
· The facilities in the village were limited, with no bus service in the early morning or after 6:00pm;
· It was believed that there were no spaces available in the local school and that the Doctor’s Surgery could not sustain additional residents;
· Mrs Woollard suggested that the development would negatively impact an important conservation area, and ‘Barnack Hills and Holes’;
· Concern was raised around the proposed widening of the road and whether this would destroy unique verges; and
· It was not believed that there was any housing need in the locality.
In response to questions from the Committee, the Principal Development Management Officer advised that there were no specific figures available in relation to how many additional school places would be required. The Governors of the local school had not raised any convers and no objection had been made by Education Officers.
The Committee discussed the application and noted that a considerable amount of objection had been received from residents, Parish and Ward Councillors, and the MP. The Committee considered that the application was not appropriate in the proposed location.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report. The motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.
Reasons for the decision
The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, Including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given in the report.