350 homes and SEND facility at Gusted Hall Lane, Main Road, Hawkwell

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 350 homes, affordable housing, a SEND and community facility, access, open space and infrastructure.

“REPORT SUMMARY S1 The development proposes a residential development of up to 350 dwellings (Use Class C3) and a Special Educational Needs (‘SEND’) facility (Use Class F1/F2) and related infrastructure including vehicular access, drainage, open space provision and Biodiversity and environmental enhancements which are reflected by the submitted Master Plans and Parameter Plans which set out principles for the proposed development.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier environmental impact assessment screening request for the same type of development concluded that an environmental impact assessment was not required.

“Screening request Application No. 25/00106/EIA: The Proposed Development comprises a residential development of up to 350 dwellings (Use Class C3) and Special Educational Needs (‘SEND’) facility (Use Class F1/F2): Decision EIA NOT REQUIRED. Issued 22.04.2024.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the site Grey Belt, the housing need significant, and the proposal’s benefits greater than its adverse impacts.

“As the Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in 2011 and is now more than five years old, the housing requirement for five-year land supply calculations must be determined using the standard method. Accordingly, the District’s local housing need for the period 2025/26 to 2029/30, as calculated by the standard methodology, is 3,445 dwellings, equating to an annual requirement of 689 homes.”

“This reflects the introduction of the updated standard method within the period - meaning the number of homes required to represent a supply for 5 years is now considerably greater – as well as the further delivery of existing housing allocations within that period. R7 Policies relating to Green Belt are among those listed at Footnote 7 to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The committee heard objections from the MP, a planning representative, a parish councillor and three ward councillors, and support from the applicant’s representative.

What members debated

Members debated land quality, Green Belt and Grey Belt issues, infrastructure, financial contributions, drainage and sewerage, with officers responding.

“The committee heard from Cllrs N Booth, S Mace and I Wilson speaking in objection as Ward Councillors for Hawkwell West. After an ensuing debate there were some points raised by members around • Land quality • Green belt/Grey Belt • Unsustainable infrastructure…”

“S106 contributions • Drainage and sewerage which were responded to by Officers.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee unanimously refused the application because of landscape and Green Belt harm, poor connectivity, and unresolved foul sewerage capacity and infrastructure concerns.

“The development proposed is inappropriate by definition in the green belt without very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and other harm contrary to paragraph 153 of the NPPF. Further any potential very special circumstances case is undermined by the lack of sewerage capacity necessary to enable timely delivery and occupation of housing.”

“The proposal would give rise to a significant increase in foul sewage flows that cannot be accommodated within existing foul drainage network without upgrading of infrastructure, for which there is no known provision being made.”

Minutes