Four bungalows at Land To The Rear Of Mill Lane, Caunton

What was proposed

The application sought four identical three-bedroom bungalows, accessed from Mill Lane by a shared drive, with parking and a turning head.

“The application originally sought planning permission for the erection of five single storey dwellings, however, this has been reduced to four single storey dwellings during the consideration of the application. The revised site plan is shown below:-”

“Access to the 4 dwellings would be via a shared drive off Mill Lane to the south. The proposed dwellings would each have three parking spaces. A turning head is also proposed to the west of the site. The existing Public Right of Way would be accommodated on the shared driveway.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a grassed field outside Caunton’s built-up settlement boundary, in open countryside, with a drainage ditch, hedges, trees and a public footpath.

“The site is located to the rear of properties which front onto Mill Lane. The site comprises of a grassed field which is accessed via a track between two residential properties. A drainage ditch runs along the southern boundary of the site which is shared with properties fronting onto Mill Lane.”

“Properties on Mill Lane are predominantly detached and a mix of house types, with single storey dwellings located predominantly to the west of the access, and two storey dwellings located to the east. The form of development within the village is predominantly linear, with dwellings positioned around the local network of roads. The application site is considered to be outside the built-up settlement boundary of Caunton and within the open countryside.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier application for up to five homes was refused and dismissed on appeal because of countryside, back-land and conservation-area impacts.

“In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would result in a loss of rural character through the proposed intrusion of residential development into an area of open countryside. Furthermore, the proposal would it is considered represent a visually prominent form of back land development when viewed from Mill Lane which would be out of keeping with the linear grain of surrounding residential built form.”

“An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, which was dismissed. In terms of whether the site is within the village of Caunton, the Inspector was not persuaded that the site lies within the village of Caunton.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing need and supply benefits outweighed limited countryside harm, while other effects were considered acceptable.

“In terms of material benefits of the scheme, the proposal would not only contribute to the District’s housing supply, it would meet an identified housing need in the form of 3 bedroom bungalows, and provide economic benefits during the construction phase and beyond. The impacts of the proposal upon the setting of the Caunton Conservation Area, highway safety, residential amenity, flooding, trees and ecology are also considered acceptable, in Officer’s opinion.”

“Taking the above into account, it is acknowledged that the proposal would give rise to some harm to the open countryside, but it is considered that the level of harm would be limited, and would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The provision of four additional 3-bed bungalows, together with the associated social and economic benefits, when considered in the context of the tilted balance, are judged to outweigh the identified harm.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and residents objected, while updated conservation, highways, rights-of-way, environmental-health and ecology responses raised no objections or supported the revised scheme.

“NSDC Conservation comments on original proposal for five dwellings – Raised concerns. This application is five new bungalows in a green field, located on the outside fringe of the Caunton Conservation Area. There are a row of modern C20 dwellings located fronting Mill Lane which are also on the outside edge of the CA. The application site sits behind these dwellings.”

“NSDC Conservation updated comments on revised proposal for four dwellings – No objections. I note the revisions relate to the removal of one dwelling from the plot. I previously identified a positive design code to the dwellings, but raised concerns around an over intensification of development in this plot, which would have resulted in a cramped layout and a set of properties; these were disproportionately aligned to account for the truncated site curtilage.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the parish council representative spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members discussed village flooding, inadequate drainage and sewage, the conservation area, the footpath, ecology, agricultural land and the earlier appeal decision.

“Members considered the application, and the local Ward Member informed the Committee that during the last two major storms the village had flooded, the main street had become a river as the Beck had overflowed, and 39 houses and gardens were flooded. It was commented that the village drains, and sewage system were inadequate. The soakaways and the soil being clay were not sufficient in absorbing the excess water.”

“Other Members commented that the proposed site would be damaging to the ecology outside of the boundary. There would be a loss of high-grade agricultural land and a similar application had been previously dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee first rejected approval by 2 votes to 11, then voted 11 to 2 for refusal against the officer recommendation.

“A vote was taken and lost for approval with 2 votes For and 11 votes Against.”

“AGREED Moved Councillor M Spoors and Seconded Councillor S Saddington (with 11 votes For and 2 votes Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be Refused for the following…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was refused because the committee considered the site unsustainable and in open countryside, with back-land, drainage and conservation-area impacts.

“(i) Unsustainable location contrary to DM8, (ii) The development would be in the open countryside contrary to policy, (iii) Back land development, (iv) Concerns regarding surface water run-off, (v) adverse impact on setting of Conservation Area…”

Minutes