60 homes at Pound Gate, Stebbing

What was proposed

The application sought 60 homes with parking, open space, a new Pound Gate access and related works, including 21 affordable homes.

“PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of 60 no. dwellings with parking, public open space, new access off Pound Gate and related ancillary works.”

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 60 dwellings, including 21 affordable homes (35%), together with associated access, parking, public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements on land east of Brick Kiln Lane, north of Pound Gate, Stebbing.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 4.1-hectare site was open arable farmland outside Stebbing’s development limits, following an earlier refused 60-home application and approval for two dwellings.

“The application site comprises approximately 4.1 hectares of land on the northern side of Pound Gate and to the east of Brick Kiln Lane on the northern edge of Stebbing village. The land forms the western portion of a larger agricultural field and is currently open arable farmland, with no built development within the main body of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with the development plan and its adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed its benefits.

“The site lies outside the defined development limits of Stebbing and is not allocated for development within either the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 or the Stebbing Neighbourhood Plan. Officers conclude that the proposal would conflict with the adopted spatial strategy of the Development Plan, particularly Core Policies 2, 3 and 19 of the Uttlesford Local Plan and Policy STEB9 of the Stebbing Neighbourhood Plan.”

“The Council's latest published housing land supply position demonstrates 4.77 years of deliverable housing supply and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

Officers identified conflict with the spatial strategy, settlement expansion into countryside, landscape and visual harm, and limited harm to nearby listed buildings.

“In visual terms, impacts are expected to be localised, with visibility largely confined to nearby receptors, including sections of Brick Kiln Lane, Pound Gate and adjacent public rights of way. Wider views are constrained by existing vegetation, landform and the built form of the village.”

“The Council's independent landscape review concludes that the submitted LVIA understates the susceptibility and sensitivity of the site and consequently underestimates the landscape effects arising from the development. Whilst these effects would remain largely localised, they would nevertheless result in a permanent urbanisation of an undeveloped parcel of countryside and erode the existing settlement edge of Stebbing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and planning portfolio holder spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in favour.

What members discussed

Members discussed housing land supply, the internal road layout, health and safety, and a report wording error clarified by officers.

“In response to questions from Members, officers: • Said there was scope in Stebbing to provide 98 dwellings within the village limits through the Neighbourhood Plan. • Took Members through the weighted balance section in the report; although the application provided 60 dwellings and some economic benefit, significant weight had been given to the policies in the Local and Neighbourhood Plans.”

“Members discussed: • The Five-Year Housing Land Supply figure. • The internal road layout of the plan and health and safety concerns. • A typographical error in the report; officers confirmed paragraph 3.1. should read “the benefit is outweighed by the harm.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The Chair proposed refusal, the proposal was seconded, and the committee authorised refusal under the report’s section 17 reasons.

“The Chair proposed refusal of the application in line with the reasons set out in section 17 of the report. This was seconded by Councillor Driscoll.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse the application in accordance with section 17 of the report.”

Minutes

What was decided

The Strategic Director of Planning was authorised to refuse the application because of settlement and countryside harm, outweighed benefits and unsecured obligations.

“2 The proposed development would, by reason of its scale and location, result in an unjustified encroachment of built development into the countryside and cause harm to landscape character, visual amenity and the planned pattern of growth for Stebbing. The proposal would undermine the spatial strategy established by Core Policies 2, 3 and 19 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 and Policy STEB9 of the Stebbing Neighbourhood Plan.”

“3 The proposed development fails to secure, through a completed planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the infrastructure, mitigation measures and community benefits necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, no mechanism exists to secure the provision, delivery, management and long-term maintenance.”

Officer report