Planning Application No: 21/2012/13181
7 Day Notice: NO
1.
Site Description
1.1
The application site is located adjacent to the former Highgate Poultry Farm on the
eastern outskirts of Cononley to the west side of Crosshills Road. The original farm
house and a further dwelling, High View, are situated at the head of Windle Lane
where it turns into a track (a public right of way) on its southwest side. To the
northeast of the track is open countryside and the application site comprises part of
a field of enclosed grassland, separated from the existing development by the track.
Levels rise relatively steeply from east to west across the site.
1.2
Access to the application site is via Windle Lane, which is a short but narrow and
steep surfaced road fronted by a mixture of houses and lock-up garages. Windle
Lane forms a junction with Crosshills Road at the entrance to Crag View.
1.3
The site is situated outside of the recognised development limits of the village but
adjoins existing residential properties to the north east (Windle Lane) and east
(Crag View). To the south of the farmhouse and High View the former poultry
buildings have been removed and a residential redevelopment of 7 detached
dwellings is nearing completion. This follows the granting of planning permission for
residential development in 2005, and revised schemes in 2010 and 2012.
1.4
The site falls within the Cononley Conservation Area which takes in the immediate
rural surroundings to the village which forms its setting.
2.
Proposal
2.1
The proposal is an outline application for the erection of a detached 4 bed dwelling
and attached garage, with the details of access and layout to be agreed but all
other matters reserved.
2.2
The application is a resubmission of a previous outline application for a dwelling on
a larger section of the field, the proposed two-storey dwelling being sited further
southeast (nearer to Windle Lane) than previously.
3.
Planning History
3.1
21/2102/12850: Proposed Detached Dwelling. Outline permission refused
13.09.2013 for the following reasons:
1) “The application site falls outside the allocated development limits of the
settlement of Cononley, in open countryside, where national planning
guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved
Policy ENV1 of the adopted Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales
National Park) Local Plan place strict control over new development.
Development Limits are defined in the Local Plan and there is a presumption
against new residential development outside development limits under
Saved Local Plan Policies H1 and H2 unless there is special justification.
Notwithstanding the overarching economic and social benefits of housing
provision within the National Planning Policy Framework, in the absence of
any overriding justification the Local Planning Authority considers that the
development would be tantamount to sporadic development in the
countryside and would not form sustainable development in accordance with
national planning guidance or comply with saved Local Plan Policies ENV1,
H1 and H2.
2) This previously undeveloped land forms part of the landscape setting of
Cononley village and falls within the designated boundary of the Cononley
Conservation Area. Having regard to the existing use of the site as pasture
and the separation between the redeveloped former Highgate Poultry Farm
and existing residential development, it is considered that the encroachment
of development into open countryside as proposed would fail to preserve or
enhance the conservation area. As such the application proposals would
not accord with the Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or form sustainable development under
National Planning Policy Framework guidance.”
3.2
There is no earlier history relating to the application site, although the adjacent
Poultry Farm site has a history of residential applications: -
3.3
21/2003/3779: Demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of six dwellings and
garages and restoration of western part of site. Approved October 2005.
3.4
21/2009/9955: Erection of six detached dwellings with garages and access road
and restoration to South Western part of site to agriculture. Approved 30 March
2010.
3.5
21/2010/11198: Construction of detached house and garage. Refused 12 January
2011.
3.6
21/2012/12296: Construction of detached house and garage. Approved 10 April
2012.
4.
Planning Policy Background
4.1
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
4.2
Saved Local Plan policies ENV1, ENV2, H1 and H2.
5.
Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1
Cononley PC: No comments received.
6.
Consultations
6.1
NYCC Highways: No objections, recommend approval subject to conditions
regarding parking provision.
6.2
Ramblers Association: “No objection to it as long as the right of way is maintained
through the building period.” (Officer note: No obstruction of the public right of way
is indicated and the highway authority have no objections).
7.
Representations
7.1
None.
8.
Summary of Principal Planning Issues
8.1
The principle of residential development at this location (having regard to the
National Planning Policy Framework and saved local plan policies).
8.2
The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
8.3
The impact of the development on the amenities of nearby residents.
9.
Analysis
1. The principle of development
9.1
The main thrust of the new National Framework is an overarching presumption in
favour of sustainable development; i.e. the general acceptability of the proposals
against the stated “three dimensions to sustainable development, which according
to the Framework has three broad roles: “economic, social and environmental”.
The guidance advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation
because they are mutually dependent; i.e. the guidance states economic, social
and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The
Framework also reaffirms that it is the Government’s clear expectation that local
planning authorities should deal promptly and favourably with applications that
comply with up to date plans and that where plans are out of date, there will be a
strong presumption in favour of sustainable development that accords with national
planning policies.
9.2
Paragraph 14 indicates that development should be approved unless any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or specific
policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. However, it is
a core planning principle in the Framework that the “intrinsic character and beauty
of the countryside” be recognised; that planning should contribute to “conserving
and enhancing the natural environment” and “conserve heritage assets in a manner
appropriate to their significance” (Para 17).
9.1
Development Limits for settlements are defined in the adopted Local Plan and, to
avoid sporadic development in the countryside, there is a presumption against new
residential development outside development limits under Saved Local Plan
Policies ENV1 and ENV2. Saved Policies H1 and H2 seek, in general terms, to
locate the majority of new residential development in the existing main service
centre settlements.
9.2
In this case the site is located on the edge of the existing built up area, alongside a
former poultry farm recently redeveloped for housing, but falls outside the
development limits of Cononley; hence for planning purposes falls within open
countryside.
9.3
In the Planning Committee’s consideration of the 2005 and 2010 applications for
the redevelopment of the poultry farm buildings it was concluded that
notwithstanding the location outside development limits, the site should be released
for residential development; because of the benefits and improvement to the
character and setting of the Conservation Area that would result from the removal
of the degraded agricultural buildings. It was assessed that the proposed dwellings
on the footprint of the poultry sheds would not compromise the overall provisions,
aims and objectives of the adopted local plan and there was no strategic objection.
(A separate S.106 Agreement was entered into to reclaim the other surrounding
land for agricultural use thereby securing the restoration of the open land to the
south west of the development).
9.4
In contrast, the area of land which forms the current application site is pasture land
outside of the area previously occupied by the poultry buildings, and does not form
part of the area considered for redevelopment in the 2005 and 2010 planning
applications. In particular, the application site lies beyond the track, a public right of
way, which presently forms a clear edge to the built up area. Therefore, it follows
that there is not the same justification for development outside of recognised
development limits as there was on the site of the poultry farm buildings and in
terms of the principle of residential development, the current proposal is tantamount
to sporadic development in the countryside. The proposal would not, therefore,
constitute sustainable development in accordance with the Framework and would
be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy ENV1.
9.5
The applicant argues, within the resubmission, that the absence of a 5 year land
supply in the district justifies (under Para 47 of the Framework) approval of an
additional house, however, it is the officer opinion that a single dwelling provides no
strategic benefit that outweighs the individual harm caused by the development.
2. Conservation Area Impact
9.6
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990
requires planning authorities “to pay special attention to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area” in considering
whether to grant planning permission or not. The NPPF sets out guidance on
assessing the impact of development on heritage assets including listed buildings
and conservation areas. The historic environment is seen as having potential to
contribute to sustainable communities, including economic vitality; and it is
therefore desirable that new development make a positive contribution to the
historic environment and local distinctiveness (Para’s 126 and 131). In terms of
general design (Para 64) confirms permission should be refused for development of
poor design.
9.7
As an outline application the indicative proposal lacks full details about scale,
character, and materials to assess the full impact on character and appearance.
However, In terms of siting of the proposed dwelling, and the layout of the
associated parking and gardens, it would appear the design would follow a similar
form as the recently constructed detached houses on the poultry farm site to the
south. These are modern in appearance and layout but reflect the local vernacular
in materials and design features. In close proximity to east and north are somewhat
older properties of more ‘suburban’ appearance, and beyond those (nearer the
centre of the village) are traditional terraced cottages.
9.8
The ‘Heritage Statement’ accompanying the application refers to the relationship of
the site to the built up area but fails to address the wider rural character setting of
the village that is the subject of the wide boundary designation. As noted above,
the more recent housing development further to the south was a direct trade-off for
the former poultry farm buildings, and was allowed to enable the restoration of
surrounding farm land so as to improve the landscape setting of the village
conservation area. In this case the site is undeveloped farmland which lies outside
the area covered by the former structures; consequently no such landscape benefit
is achieved in this application.
9.9
The amendments made within the resubmission are firstly to reduce the curtilage to
the house (and hence the site area), and secondly; to bring the dwelling closer to
existing properties. However, despite these changes, it is not considered that the
additional dwelling and encroachment into the landscape setting of the village
would serve to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the wider
conservation area, as required by S.72. The applicant’s view that a small
development on the edge of the built up area is not intrusive is not considered to
overcome the concern about the encroachment into the landscape as it is an
argument that could be repeated over and over again.
3. Neighbour Amenity.
9.10
Having regard to the orientation and separation to existing nearby properties, and
the ability to control the position of window openings, it is not held that the proposed
dwelling would have an unreasonable effect on the living conditions of the
occupiers of any existing nearby dwelling by reason of any unacceptable
overlooking, or dominant overbearing impact.
4. Public footpath
9.11
The proposal would not obstruct the public right of way and, further to the comment
from the Ramblers Association, any obstruction during construction could be dealt
with under highway authority powers.
10.
Recommendation
10.1
Refusal.
11.
Reasons for refusal
11.1
The application site falls outside the allocated development limits of the settlement
of Cononley, in open countryside, where national planning guidance contained in
the National Planning Policy Framework and Saved Policy ENV1 of the adopted
Craven District (Outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park) Local Plan place strict
control over new development. Development Limits are defined in the adopted
Local Plan and there is a presumption against new residential development outside
development limits under Saved Local Plan Policies H1 and H2 unless there is
special justification. Notwithstanding the overarching economic and social benefits
of housing provision within the National Planning Policy Framework, in the absence
of any overriding justification the Local Planning Authority considers that the
development would be tantamount to sporadic development in the countryside and
would not form sustainable development in accordance with national planning
guidance or comply with saved Local Plan Policies ENV1, H1 and H2.
11.2
This previously undeveloped land forms part of the landscape setting of Cononley
village and falls within the designated boundary of the Cononley Conservation Area.
Having regard to the existing use of the site as pasture and the separation between
the redeveloped former Highgate Poultry Farm and existing residential
development, it is considered that the encroachment of development into open
countryside as proposed would fail to preserve or enhance the conservation area.
As such the application proposals would not accord with the Section 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or form sustainable
development under National Planning Policy Framework guidance.
Statement of Positive Engagement: In dealing with this application Craven District Council has sought to approach the
decision making process in a positive way, in accordance with the requirements of
paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF. In this particular case the Council has
provided reasons why a previous application was refused, however, no preapplication advice was sought and the application cannot be supported in principle.