1 to 5 homes at Land Adjacent Orchard Cottage Kirklington Road, Hockerton

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for between one and five homes, with detailed design deferred to a later technical consent stage.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle (the first of a 2-stage process) for residential development of a minimum of 1 dwelling and a maximum of 5 dwellings. No specific details are required at this stage.”

“As the proposal is for permission in principle, no site plan or elevational details are required to be submitted at this stage. Such details would be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage, if permission in principle is approved.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a half-hectare pasture parcel beside Hockerton, beyond its built-up area, with countryside, homes, a public footpath and low flood risk.

“The application site comprises of parcel of agricultural land measuring 0.5 hectares in area, located to the north of the A617 Kirklington Road and to the west of the village of Hockerton. At the time of the officers site visit was the site was pasture land. The site is bounded by a post and rail fence and hedgerow along the boundary with the highway.”

“In terms of site constraints, the site is not located within a designated Conservation Area. The nearest Listed building is located approx. 120m to the south of the site at Hockerton Grange. A Public Right of Way runs through the western parcel of the site in a diagonal direction from the bottom SE corner to the top NW corner of the site.”

Officer report

Planning history

The officer report states that the application site has no relevant planning history.

“The application site has no relevant history.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the location, residential use and amount of development acceptable in principle, subject to detailed assessment later, and recommended approval.

“The purpose of this application is to assess the acceptability of the proposal on the application site, in relation to location, land use, and amount of development, in principle only. Any other issues should be assessed at Technical Details stage. Further to the above assessment, it is considered that the location and land use is suitable for residential development, and between 1 and 5 dwellings would be an acceptable amount of development for the site.”

“It should be noted that conditions cannot be attached to a Permission in Principle. Conditions would be attached to the Technical Details Consent. The Permission in Principle and the Technical Details Consent together form the full permission. No development can commence until both have been approved.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council and rights of way team objected, while highways accepted the access and traffic impact but raised pedestrian safety concerns.

“The site is unsuitable for residential development. Busy section of the A617, numerous road traffic incidents. Access directly onto A617 will increase risks of accidents.”

“On this basis, notwithstanding the acceptability of the traffic impact and access arrangements, the location raises concerns in respect of pedestrian safety and the suitability of the site in transport terms.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, and members had first viewed the site before considering the officer presentation, photographs and plans.

What members debated

Members focused on the countryside location, cumulative impact, ribbon pattern, access and pavement safety, agricultural land, site shape and the proposed intensity.

“Members considered the application and concerns were raised regarding the proposed development being in the open countryside, the cumulative impact this development would have on this part of Hockerton and that it was not in-keeping with the ribbon pattern. Concerns regarding safety were raised as there was no pavement on this side of a busy road and the site would need another access onto the A617.”

Minutes

How members voted

The committee first rejected a motion to approve, then recorded a vote on the motion to refuse against the officer recommendation.

“AGREED Moved Councillor L Dales and Seconded Councillor P Rainbow (with 7 votes For and 4 votes Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation Permission in Principle be Refused, for the reason: DM5 location and quantum, DM8 open countryside and highway concerns – inappropriate location of access.”

“In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.”

Minutes