25 self-build plots at Land Off James Lane, Tunstall

What was proposed

An outline application sought 25 self and custom-build residential plots with associated works, while leaving all matters reserved, including access.

“The Head of Development Management - Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for outline planning application for 25 plots for self and custom-build residential development and associated works (all matters reserved including access) at land off James Lane, Tunstall, North Yorkshire.”

Minutes

Main planning concerns

The planning officer highlighted insufficient information about surface-water discharge, infiltration testing or the ditch and waterway beside the northern boundary.

“The Planning Officer summarised the report and update report which had been published to the Council website as item 5a of the agenda pack. The Officer advised that the issue with drainage and flooding was the lack of information to prove there was a suitable place to discharge surface water; either via infiltration testing or surveys of the ditch/ waterway running along the sites northern boundary.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed remoteness, appearance, self-build housing, development limits, flooding, footway safety and the absence of an affordable housing plan.

“During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:- · The remoteness of the development in relation to nearby amenities. · That the development would not look in situ next to the nearby garage and barracks. · Whether self-build and custom-build houses were compatible with what the area needed. · Members sought clarity on the development limit, and how the site was situated in relation to its boundary.”

“OFFICIAL Officer explained that an affordable housing plan could be submitted by the applicant in the heads of terms or included in the covering letter or planning statement. The decision to develop these plans further was dependent on whether the principle of development was first deemed acceptable. In this case, the application being considered did not include an affordable housing plan at this outline stage.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission, and the vote was unanimous.

“The Committee agreed with the reasons for refusal put forward by the Principal Planning Officer as set out below:-”

“I. The application site is located outside and not adjacent to the development limits or the built up extent of Catterick Garrison, and is within the open countryside. The site is a located a significant distance from the nearest services and facilities within Catterick Garrison as well as the nearest transport links.”

Minutes