58 homes at Land off Beech Lane, Kislingbury

The site and its setting

The site was an undeveloped agricultural field outside Kislingbury’s village boundary, beside homes, recreation land, public rights of way and countryside.

“The application site comprises of approximately 2.7 hectares of agricultural field on the eastern edge of Kislingbury, but outside of the village boundary of Kislingbury, as defined by the South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2. Kislingbury is a rural settlement, defined by policy SS2 as a Secondary Service Village (A) settlement.”

“The site comprises an area of undeveloped open land, broadly rectangular in form and relatively flat in topography. The land is predominantly grassed in character and forms part of a wider green and recreational landscape on the eastern side of the village.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal, concluding that the proposal’s adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its housing and other benefits.

“The proposal would deliver 58 dwellings in a sustainable settlement which benefits from a range of local services, facilities, public transport opportunities and a close functional relationship with Northampton. Significant weight is attached to the delivery of market and afforable housing and the contribution the scheme would make towards addressing the identified housing land supply shortfall.”

“Taking all matters into account, it is concluded that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole. The proposal is therefore considered to represent an unsustainable form of development and planning permission should be refused.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objectors raised concerns about policy, traffic, infrastructure, landscape, heritage, environmental effects, residential amenity and noise from the grain dryer.

“Infrastructure and Capacity • Increased demand on infrastructure (education, health, environmental services, drainage and social infrastructure) • Limited existing infrastructure within the village to accommodate development • Existing schools do not have capacity to accommodate additional demand…”

“Residential Amenity • Noise from the nearby grain dryer would impact intended occupiers…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two local residents, the parish council, the local ward member and an MP spoke against the proposal; the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The committee vote

Councillor Zoe Smith proposed refusal, Councillor David Tarbun seconded it, and members voted ten in favour, none against and no abstentions.

“Following a debate, it was proposed by Councillor Zoe Smith and seconded by Councillor David Tarbun that application WNS/2022/0673/MAF be refused in…”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee refused because of heritage, design, countryside, ecology, noise, health and wellbeing concerns, and the absence of a Section 106 agreement.

“The submitted noise assessment fails to adequately assess all relevant noise sources and relies on mitigation measures, such as enhanced glazing and mechanical ventilation, that would necessitate windows remaining closed to achieve acceptable internal noise levels. This approach would provide poor living conditions for future occupants.”

“The proposal fails to demonstrate that it would adequately promote or support health and wellbeing for future occupiers or the wider community. In the absence of a structured Health Impact Assessment, the applicant has not shown that the development would fully address relevant health considerations or maximise opportunities for improved connectivity, active travel, and green infrastructure.”

Minutes