One dwelling at Bluebell Cottage, Leigh Sinton Malvern

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for one dwellinghouse at Bluebell Cottage, Dragons Lane.

“M/25/01026/PIP Location: Bluebell Cottage, Dragons Lane, Leigh Sinton, Malvern, WR13 5EB Proposal: Permission in Principle for the proposed erection of one dwellinghouse Page 33 Agenda Item 6”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site lies outside Leigh Sinton’s development boundary, within a significant gap, and includes trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

“The application site comprises a parcel of land located on the eastern side of Dragons Lane, approximately 22.6m to the south-west of Bluebell Cottage and its associated curtilage. The application site is located approximately 616m to the south-west of the development boundary at Leigh Sinton and is bounded by vegetation to the north-west, south-east and south-west, including trees.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was outside the development boundary and future residents would be poorly connected to services without a car.

“In light of the limited benefits associated with the proposal, it is considered that the adverse impact of the proposed development, namely the location and poor connectivity of the site, which would result in reliance on the private motor vehicle for access to local facilities, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits associated with the development.”

“RECOMMENDATION - Refuse Permission in Principle for the following reason: The development is located outside of the development boundary as defined by the South Worcestershire Development plan and by virtue of its location would result in a dwelling where future occupiers would be poorly connected to key services by sustainable travel modes and heavily reliant on a motor vehicle due to the poor standard of the local walking and cycling environment and the limited nature…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Natural England and contaminated land officers raised no objection, while the Tree and Landscape Officer objected over trees, site constraints and likely vegetation removal.

“Despite the presence of many trees around the edge of the site, some of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO), no tree constraints information has been provided in support of this application. Full and informed comment cannot be made without the submission of this information, in accordance with BS 5837 (2012) - Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.”

“The boundary vegetation along the site’s western boundary contributes to the character of Dragons Lane. Although there is already an access to the site from Dragons Lane, it seems likely, in order to achieve satisfactory levels of visibility to the north of the access for vehicles leaving the site, that some of the vegetation would need to be removed. I would suggest that this would open up views into the site and be to the detriment of the character of the lane.”

Officer report

Comments received

No public representations were received, while the applicant challenged the tree assessment and argued that the site supported sustainable travel and rural community sustainability.

“In relation to the comments submitted by the Tree and Landscape Officer, the applicant outlined that the report is not relevant in its content to a PIP application as a PIP is not measured on such technical observations at this stage. It was further outlined that the comments were not based on a site visit but on a desktop investigation which is out of date in detail and inaccurate in content, and that there are no TPOs within the footprint area of this application.”

“In relation to the recommendation of refusal on the basis of the site occupying an unsustainable location, the applicant set out potential improvements which would be made to the local bus network and set out that the site is located close to a number of public rights of way. It was further outlined that Dragons Lane is predominantly used by dog walkers, ramblers, cyclists and horse riders and that these non- vehicular users outnumber car traffic.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The development manager presented the application; no parish council representative or objector spoke, and the applicant addressed the committee.

The committee vote

Councillor N. McVey proposed refusal, Councillor J. Raine seconded it, and members voted five for, four against and one abstention.

“A motion to REFUSE planning permission, in line with officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor N. McVey, seconded by Councillor J. Raine, and voted upon.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee authorised refusal because the dwelling would occupy an unsustainable location outside the development boundary, with poor walking, cycling and bus connections.

“That the Director of Planning and Infrastructure be authorised to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:”

“The development was located outside of the development boundary as defined by the South Worcestershire Development plan and by virtue of its location would result in a dwelling where future occupiers would be poorly connected to key services by sustainable travel modes and heavily reliant on a motor vehicle due to the poor standard of the local walking and cycling environment and the limited nature of local bus services.”

Minutes