Five detached dwellings at Land At Eden Field Kingsdown Lane Blunsdon, Swindon

What was proposed

The application sought five detached three-bedroom homes, with shared access, parking, garages and cycle storage.

“The proposal 3. The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 5no. detached dwellings. The dwellings are all three bedroomed properties with plots 1-3 being chalet bungalows with roofspace accommodation and plots 4-5 being single storey only.”

“An existing driveway that forms a gated access onto Kingsdown Lane will provide access to the dwellings. The communal access is shared with the recently permitted 4no. dwellings (appeal decision APP/U3935/W/24/3339082) under construction fronting Kingsdown Lane.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.36-hectare site lies behind permitted homes, near a former commercial site and countryside, south-east of Blunsdon.

“The site is located on the southern side of Kingsdown Lane that is a non-classified road to the south east of the main settlement of Blunsdon. The site measures 0.36 Ha in area and is to the rear of the recently permitted development for 4no. dwellings fronting Kingsdown Lane, Home Farm and the permitted bungalow plot S/22/1134. To the west side is a former commercial site and to the south is mainly the countryside.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site allocated, the design acceptable, access suitable with conditions, and the benefits greater than any adverse effects.

“In the same appeal decision, the Inspector also addressed the issue regarding refusal reason on the basis the application site is located within the countryside outside of defined settlement boundaries and is not allocated by the Neighbourhood Plan (NP). This has been reiterated by the Parish Council and the Local Highways Authority in their objections to the proposals.”

“Based on the recent appeal decision at Land north of Eden Field that is accorded substantial weight and specific circumstances of the application site, the proposal, as assessed above, would not result in adverse effects that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal within an allocated site, would result in an additional 5no.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, highways officers objected on accessibility and safety grounds, while other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Blunsdon Parish Council: Object highlighting the following (summary comments): • Backland Development / Inappropriate Location • No Safe Access for Children or Pedestrians • No Access Pathways to Kingsdown Area. • Accessibility Failure • No SUDS Provision • Heavy HGV Use – Significant Safety Risk • Impact on Cold Harbour Junction • Contaminated Land Concerns…”

“Consultees 12. National Highways: (summary comments) No objection to the proposed development, based on its limited scale and impact. However, the Council should consider securing a proportionate financial contribution towards identified strategic highways improvements on the B4534 (Lady Lane) to address the cumulative impact of development in the Blunsdon area.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Supporters said there was no policy basis for refusal, while objections focused on school journeys, car dependency, backland development and HGV traffic.

“The parish council has an in-principle objection to any housing in the area of the development site, but no refusal of planning permission on the grounds suggested by the parish would be tenable. • There is no policy basis upon which to refuse the application. • A wide variety of building designs are visible within the area local to the application site and the proposals will add positive to this mix. • The proposed development will help to tidy up the application site.”

“There was concern about how any children that may come to live on the development site would get to school, given that Kingsdown Lane has very few passing places and no safe walking path. • The development would be car dependent, with the nearest bus stop being located at the Coldharbour junction. • There are proposals for 23 houses to be built in the vicinity of the development site, included the 5 proposed as part of this development.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, and an objector who was also a parish councillor spoke against the application.

What members discussed

Members heard that the site was within an allocated development area but also that highways officers found private-car dependence and unsafe access.

“The proposed development site is 600m from the end of Kingsdown Lane, which means that it would likely not be feasible for safe walking infrastructure to be delivered along the length of the Lane. • The Council’s highways team has concluded that the development would be contrary to Policy TR2(a) and TR2(b) of the Local Plan, on the basis that the development would be dependent on travel by private car and inadequately served via safe access.”

“The proposed development is located within an allocated site and it should be recognised that local infrastructure improvements will be delivered as the strategic site is developed.”

Minutes

The votes

Members voted against granting permission and then voted to defer the application for further highways safety investigation.

“Councillor Matthew Courtliff proposed that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the Case Officer’s report. Councillor Neil Hopkins seconded the proposal. Three Councillors were in favour of the proposal and four were opposed. The proposal fell.”

“Councillor Matthew Courtliff proposed that the application be deferred in order for further investigation to take place into the highways safety elements of the proposal. Councillor Sudha Nukana seconded the proposal. Six Councillors were in favour of the proposal and one was opposed.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The application was deferred to allow further investigation into the highways safety elements of the proposal.

“Resolved – That the application be deferred in order to allow for further investigation to take place into the highways safety elements of the proposal.”

Minutes