2 to 5 homes at Land At Corkhill Lane, Normanton

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for between two and five homes, with detailed design reserved for a later technical consent stage.

“The site is considered to be outside the village of Normanton and within the open countryside. A Public Right of Way, known as Southwell FP65 is located to the east of the site and runs in a southerly direction towards Greet Lily Mill on the edge of Southwell. Relevant Planning History 2.1 The application site has no relevant planning history.”

“It is the second stage of the process, Technical Details Consent, which assesses the details of the proposal. This must be submitted within 3 years of the Permission in Principle decision. In terms of accessing the site, the proposed dwellings could utilise the existing access off Corkhill Lane. As the proposal is for permission in principle, no site plan or elevational details are required to be submitted at this stage.”

Officer report

Planning history and constraints

The site had no relevant planning history and lies in open countryside, within a protected view cone, but in Flood Zone 1.

“In terms of site constraints, the site is not located within a designated Conservation Area. The nearest Listed buildings are located approx. 230m to the southeast of the site at Manor Farm. However, it does lie within a protected view cone for Southwell as defined in the Newark and Sherwood District Council Protected Views policy (SoPV). The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore at a low risk of flooding from rivers and seas.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was near existing development and services, and the housing benefits outweighed the identified impacts.

“Given the existing pattern of development along this section of Corkhill Lane, and its rural ‘edge of settlement location’, this maximum is considered acceptable in principle and would not appear out of character within the existing density of development in the area. Any higher density could result in unacceptable harm to the character and visual amenities of the area.”

“In this instance, the site is considered to be within the open countryside adjacent to the built-up village of Normanton. Officers are of the view that there are no impacts at this stage that would warrant refusal when applying the tilted balance in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, which favours the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless there are convincing issues which would warrant refusal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support of the application after members received a presentation with photographs and plans.

What members debated

Members considered the site outside Normanton’s built-up area, urbanisation of open countryside and effects on views of Southwell Minster.

“Members considered the application and felt that this development was outside of the built-up area of Normanton and would affect the views of Southwell Minster, which was steeped in years of history. Members considered this a creep of urbanisation into the open countryside and was not a suitable site for development.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously agreed to refuse permission in principle, and a recorded vote was taken because this opposed the officer recommendation.

“AGREED (unanimously) that Permission in Principle be refused for the following reasons:”

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

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission in principle was refused because of Policy DM8 and the impact on the protected view of Southwell Minster.

“(i) DM8; and (ii) Protective Views - impact of the view of the Minster.”

Minutes