Agenda item

Planning applications

Consideration was given to the report detailing the planning applications which had been previously circulated.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the variations set out below, the advice set out in the report now submitted be agreed.

WND/2021/0534 – MOULTON – REMOVAL OF ATTACHED GARAGE AT 18 HIGH STREET, DEMOLITION OF BARNS AND ERECTION OF 3 NO. DWELLINGS. EXISTING PERIMETER WALL MADE GOOD AND REPOINTED - LAND TO REAR OF 18, HIGH STREET, MOULTON, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

The Development Management Manager outlined the application and noted that the field to the rear of the site was in the applicant’s ownership. The Committee were shown views of the site from the High Street and from the field. The design of the proposed buildings was considered acceptable, and it was not considered that the amenity of the neighbouring residents would be adversely affected by the proposal. However, the whole of the site and the field were in the Moulton conservation area and the site lay outside the village confines. The field was identified as an area of important open space, enclosed by stone boundary walls, in the Moulton Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. It was not considered that the proposal would result an in environmental improvement and it would harm the character of the conservation area and the village; any public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused. The proposal was contrary to policy R1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and ENV7 of the Settlements and Countryside Part 2 Local Plan and policy H1 of the Moulton Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Mr Care spoke against the application as it was contrary to the Moulton Neighbourhood Development Plan which had identified the area as an important existing open space to local people. Dr Brown spoke against the application, on behalf of the residents of Doves Lane, the site was greenfield land and there had been a significant loss of this land around the village in recent years. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the conservation area.

The Chairman read out a statement from Councillor Mike Warren who considered that the proposal would result in an environmental improvement and was not contrary to policy. The applicant would also repair and enhance the boundary walls as part of the proposal.

The Chairman read out a statement from Councillor Daniel Cribbin who considered that the application was compliant with policy R1. Councillor Cribbin believed that the proposal would create an environmental enhancement to the conservation area, as it would improve the façade of the existing property at 18 High Street. The removal of the existing garage serving 18 High Street would also open up an important view to the countryside.

Mr Bignell spoke in favour of the application which he considered would result in an environmental improvement, opening up views to the countryside from the High Street. The majority of the green space would be retained, and it would provide much needed rural housing.

Mr Lord, the applicant, addressed the Committee and acknowledged that the stone walls were in a poor condition. The proposal would provide new homes for the village. Further to an enquiry, Mr Lord acknowledged that it was the responsibility of the owner to maintain the walls.

The Development Management Manager highlighted that agricultural land was excluded from the definition of previously developed land in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Further to an enquiry, the Development Management Manager advised that the application was contrary to policy as the site was outside the confines of the village. It was therefore contrary to policy R1 and the other policies set out in the officer’s report, recommendation and proposed reasons for refusal.

It was noted that there were 7 parking spaces for 3 four-bedroom houses.

Councillor Wendy Randall proposed that officer’s advice to refuse the application be accepted. The proposition was seconded by Councillor Jonathan Harris, who added that the application was contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan, in which the site was identified as protected green space. The proposition to refuse the application was put to the meeting and declared carried with 5 voting in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused as set out in the report.