Ten-home residential development at Land Adjacent Wellow Fields Main Road, Wellow, Yarmouth

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to ten houses, with access considered now and layout, appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later.

“Outline planning permission is sought for residential development of up to ten houses, with the only matters for consideration being the broad principle of the development and means of access. The remaining matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be reserved for a later stage.”

“Means of access is the only detailed matter to consider for this outline planning application and therefore, a detailed plan has been provided showing the proposed access. The access would adjoin the southern side of Main Road and include a typical bell-mouth junction with space provided for two vehicles to pass, leading to internal six-metre-wide access roads reducing in width as it travels through the site, and parking areas for the proposed houses.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a 1.8-hectare agricultural field in a rural hamlet, enclosed by hedges, beside the Millennium Green and near a listed building and public footpath.

“The application site is located within Wellow, a rural hamlet characterised by ribbon development. The area comprises a mix of housing, although most houses are older cottages set within generous well landscaped gardens that front the highway. In between, is more modern infill development.”

“There is an existing access located alongside the eastern boundary of the application site, which allows secondary access to Hartshole Cottage. There is also a public right of way that aligns with the western side of the site (footpath S18). There is a large and attractive area of public open space that adjoins the eastern boundary of the site, known as the Millenium Green. The Green includes a small playing area for children and a large area of mown grass.”

Officer report

Earlier access applications

An earlier access application was withdrawn, while a revised access scheme received permission in 2016 but does not appear to have been built.

“P/01051/15 - Formation of vehicular access – Application withdrawn 16 th…”

“P/01347/15 - Formation of Vehicular Access (Revised scheme) – Granted planning permission 5 th February 2016. The access does not appear to have been constructed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional permission with a legal agreement, citing housing need, broad sustainability, manageable impacts and secured mitigation.

“Recommendation Conditional permission subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement.”

“Conditional permission subject to planning conditions covering the following matters: • Submission of reserved matters • Construction Environment Management Plan • External materials to be used • Surface water drainage • Landscaping • Means of access…”

Officer report

Officers’ main assessment

Officers considered the housing benefits outweighed minor farmland loss and that conditions could address character, amenity, heritage, ecology, highways and drainage.

“The NPPF states that the social objective is to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, referring to supporting the community’s health, social and cultural well-being. The proposals would deliver 10 new family sized homes and therefore make a modest contribution to providing much needed houses. The development would deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing, within a rural hamlet.”

“The proposals would result in the loss of approximately 1.79 hectares of grade 3a farmland, this falling within the best and most versatile farmland. This is considered to be a minor level of loss, that would weigh against the scheme in a minor manner.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Two objectors, a parish council representative, the agent and a councillor speaking for the local member addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members questioned Natural England consultation, the pavement, sustainability, character and affordable housing, while officers explained the assessment and possible affordable housing options.

“Confirmation was sought regarding the consultation process with Natural England, officers advised that they had been consulted and they had confirmed that the Local Planning Authority should satisfy itself the correct information had been supplied and that the correct assessments had been carried out.”

“Questions were raised regarding the affordable housing on the site and if there were any options available to the Committee, they were informed that the proposed scheme would provide the required 35% affordable housing but that if the Committee so wished, they could seek a greater discount to the standard 20 per cent outlined within guidance.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A proposal to refuse was seconded, the vote was tied, and the Chair used a casting vote in favour of refusal.

“A proposal to refuse the proposed application was made and duly seconded on the basis that it was not considered to be sustainable development and would be out of character within the area contrary to policies DM17 and SP5.”

“A vote was taken the result of which was tied, and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution the Chair made a casting vote, and voted for the proposal to refuse.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the homes would be outside the settlement boundary, car-dependent and harmful to the area’s rural character.

“Reasons: The Island Plan Core Strategy identifies the application site as being situated outside the defined settlement boundaries and thus falls within the Wider Rural Area. The proposed development would result in ten additional dwellings situated outside of a settlement boundary, away from services and facilities which would result in an unsustainable form of development reliant on access by private car.”

“The proposed dwellings and associated access and parking/turning areas would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical and visual impact they would cause and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the character of the area and would be contrary to policies SP5 (Environment) and DM2 (Design Quality for New Development) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.”

Minutes