Up to four dwellings at Land to the South of Mill Lane, Wetley Rocks

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for between one and four detached dwellings on land south of Mill Lane.

“A 40 page planning statement accompanies the application. The application is stated to be for “up to 4 detached dwellings (1-4) within the red edge as indicated on the accompanying plans”. The red edge is drawn short of the full field omitting from the application land certain of the field’s southerly and westerly portions. With no physical features this site edge to the south and west has no defined visual presence on the ground.”

“Determination of an application for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. This is known as Stage 1 and, if approved, a Stage 2 application must follow. This is termed the technical details stage at which point such matters as design, ecology, and highways would be considered.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for equestrian use and an agricultural barn were refused, and the barn refusal was dismissed at appeal.

“01/00401/FUL [SMD/2001/0855] Change of use of land from agricultural to equestrian and construction of 6 new stables (revised submission) – refused…”

“05/00637/FUL [SMD/2005/0764] Erection of agricultural barn – refused – dismissed at appeal…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm the rural character, Green Belt openness and countryside, and would not be sustainable.

“The site does not benefit from any of the exceptions at NPPF paragraphs 154 or 155 and the development is therefore inappropriate in the Green Belt. There would be harm to openness and the development would result in significant encroachment on the countryside. Substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt and the proposal would thus be contrary to Local Plan Policy SS10 and to the NPPF.”

“Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Policy SS10 supports only development for which there is an essential locational need in the countryside. Notwithstanding that the Council is currently unable to meet Government housing supply targets the adverse impacts of the proposal in terms of character and appearance, Green Belt and sustainable travel would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of up to four additional dwellings when assessed against the policies in…”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected, while the highways authority recommended refusal because of pedestrian safety, missing access details and absent visibility splays.

“The lack of dedicated pedestrian infrastructure along the frontage of the site, or for approximately 200 metres along Mill Lane to the nearest section of footway, would require future occupiers to walk within the carriageway, resulting in conflict between vulnerable road users and motor vehicles. This is considered to give rise to an unacceptable impact on pedestrian safety and would fail to provide safe and suitable access for all users.”

“No details have been submitted regarding the means of access to serve the development and no visibility splay information has been provided. For a new development access onto a road subject to a 30mph speed limit, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in both directions would typically be required.”

Officer report

What residents said

Seven objections raised concerns about Green Belt development, countryside character, traffic, drainage, wildlife, highway safety and the lack of infill.

“- Green Belt - has always been agricultural land - encroachment into the countryside - this is not an infill site - a haven for wildlife - Mill Lane is already overdeveloped - there are brown field sites which can be used if needed - inadequate sewer drainage capacity - danger of additional traffic especially at the bend at the bridge - this is not in a development area - less contentious neighbouring developments have previously been rejected - allowed appeal decision…”

“- Proposal conflicts with rural area policies which seek to restrict development in rural areas and protect the countryside from inappropriate expansion. - The site is clearly part of the rural landscape rather than the established village envelope, and its development would erode the distinction between settlement and countryside.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent and the ward councillor spoke in support of the application.

What members debated

Members discussed sustainability, accessibility, highways advice, housing need and visual impact, with concerns about character and appearance remaining.

“Members debated sustainability, accessibility, the Highways recommendation, housing need and the visual impact a development would have on the surrounding countryside. Whilst some Members considered there may be potential for future development on the site, concerns remained regarding character and appearance therefore a full application for a proposal on this site would be preferred.”

“In terms of the absence of footpaths and comments from Highways, some members disagreed that the lack of footpaths was and issue and that more information was required from the Highways Section.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to refuse the application, following a proposal by Councillor Kempster and a second by Councillor Hoptroff.

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided thar the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

“(Proposed by Councillor Kempster and seconded by Councillor Hoptroff)”

Minutes