14 dwellings at Reed House, Jacksons Lane, Reed, Royston

The site and its setting

The site is on Reed’s northern edge outside the settlement boundary, within Reed House’s extensive grounds and beside open space and farmland.

“The application site occupies a position on the northern edge of the village and to the south of a country lane called The Joint on land outside of the Reed settlement boundary.”

“Reed House is a large detached dwelling located on the north side of Jackson's Lane and set in extensive grounds of 1.6ha, the majority of which is located to the rear towards The Joint and comprise former agricultural land now within the residential curtilage and principally laid to grass with a gated access onto The Joint.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for 13 or 14 homes, and an adjacent proposal for seven homes, were refused and dismissed on appeal.

“04/01397/1: Outline application for the erection of 24 detached and terraced dwellings with garaging, open space, estate road and formation of vehicular accesses onto Jackson’s Lane and The Joint (Design, external appearance and landscaping reserved). Refused on 30 th September 2004. Dismissed on appeal 27 th April 2005.”

“11/02254/1: Erection of 13 dwellings (outline application - appearance, landscaping and scale reserved). Refused 25.11.2011 Dismissed on appeal 22 nd August 2012.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development conflicted with the development plan, harmed the conservation area, had substantial landscape and design effects, and lacked a completed agreement.

“Officers consider that the development would have fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Reed Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset, through development within its setting, and that the proposal would have a moderate level of harm on the less than substantial continuum to the heritage significance of this asset.”

“However, the proposed development would conflict with planning policies relating to the location of development within the countryside outside the settlement boundary for Reed within the rural area beyond the Green Belt. Moreover, whilst the proposal would only make moderate contribution to housing land supply, the scale of development would have a significant visual impact in this location.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, flood, archaeology, ecology and environmental health consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while conservation officers objected over heritage harm.

“HCC Lead Local Flood Authority: – no objection subject to conditions.”

“NHDC Environmental Health – no objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Twenty-six responses were received: 25 objections cited location, character, heritage, highways, infrastructure, flooding and environmental concerns, while one supported affordable housing.

“The application has been advertised with site and press notices and neighbour notification letters. 26 responses have been received (with 25 objecting and 1 supporting) in response to the publication of the application. The details are published on the Council’s web site.”

“Proposed development is outside of the village boundary contrary to the Local Plan 2. Already a significant increase in housing in Reed 3. Contrary to the rural character of the village. 4. Scale, density and suburban style disproportionate to the character of Reed 5. Adverse impact on heritage assets 6. Would set a precedent for more development in the village area 7. Detrimental to highway safety 8. Would not integrate well with the village 9.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor spoke against the proposal, and the applicant’s agent spoke in support, citing housing need, transport links, heritage evidence and contributions.

Members’ debate

Members supported refusal because the development would not integrate well with its surroundings and agreed with the reasons in the officer assessment.

“The following Members took part in the debate:”

“Refusal should be supported for the reasons set out by the Principal Planning Officer in their report. • A shielded development like this did not integrate well with the surrounding area. • The development felt wrong for the reasons described in the report. • The report had been well written and understood the local strains on the community, in addition to relevant planning considerations.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members proposed and seconded refusal, then resolved to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officer assessment.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.”

Minutes