One new dwelling at 15 Belmont Road, Ipstones

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for one detached dwelling in the garden of 15 Belmont Road, with all matters reserved.

“The site is a tapering rear corner section of the back garden to 15 Belmont Road. No. 15 is the end house in a short row of three dwellings on the south side of Belmont Road. Opposite is a slightly longer row of eight detached dwellings which form a ribbon along Belmont Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a rear garden corner beside open countryside, hedgerows, a farm lane and listed buildings near Stones Farm.

“The farm house at Stones Farm is Grade II Listed, as is an adjacent (though somewhat tumbledown) stone barn. The latter is c.90m from the application site and visible from it. The surroundings are essentially open and rural. The boundaries of the property are well hedged with a mature traditional native-species hedgerow.”

Officer report

Why refusal was advised

Officers considered the site outside the village boundary, not infill, poorly related to existing development and harmful through countryside intrusion and overdevelopment.

“As a larger village Ipstones is given a defined development boundary in the Council’s adopted Local Plan. Inside the boundary the principle of development is determined under policy SS8 for the Larger Villages. In the case of this proposal the site lies outside of the development boundary and the principle of whether a development could be acceptable is therefore determined by reference to policy SS10 for the rural areas.”

“On examination, several factors now become apparent. Firstly, the application site is not ‘vacant’ but is occupied by an existing dwelling (no. 15) and the development would be taking place within the existing allotted back garden of the property. Secondly, the site does not lie ‘between houses’ but is adjacent to Rubern on the one side and open countryside on the other.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward councillor and the applicant spoke in support of the application.

What members considered

Members considered sympathy for young people living in the village alongside the boundary, development pattern, access, plot, hedge and countryside.

“Members had sympathy for young people wishing to live in the village. Consideration was given to the development boundary, development pattern, access, size of the plot, the boundary hedge and surrounding countryside.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the reasons and policies stated, with delegated authority for non-substantive wording changes.

“That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;”

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided thar the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes