Ribble Valley Borough Council

DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - REFUSAL

Ref: SW/CMS
Application No: / 3/2014/0319/P
Development Proposed: / Three bed dwelling at land to the northeast of Whitehall Lane, Grindleton

CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council

Parish Council – Do not support the application, the planned building being built in AONB.

CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies

Environment Directorate (County Surveyor) – The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant effect upon the adjacent highway network and thus there is no objection to the proposal on highway grounds.
County Archaeologist – No significant archaeological implications.
Electricity North West – The development could have an impact on infrastructure.
Environment Agency - No objections subject to certain technical requirements.

CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations

One letter has been received raising the following points:
1. The plans do not provide sufficient detail regarding relative ground levels to the proposed house. Can more detailed plans be obtained to demonstrate the buildings interaction with surrounding sloping ground and relevant features?
2. Whilst not adverse to contemporary design a little nervous that the box design could look out of place.
3. No objection in principle to the low height and small/modest size house providing the current landscaping remains in place.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan
Policy G1 - Development Control.
Policy G5 - Settlement Strategy.
Policy ENV1 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy ENV13 – Landscape Protection
Policy H2 - Dwellings in the Open Countryside.
Policy T1 - Development Proposals - Transport Implications.
Ribble Valley Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft (including proposed main modifications May 2014)
Key Statement DS1 - Development Strategy
Key Statement EN2 - Landscape
Key Statement EN4 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Policy DMG1 - General Considerations
Policy DMG2 - Strategic Considerations
Policy DMG3 - Transport and Mobility
Policy DME1 – Protecting Trees and Woodland
Policy DME2 - Landscape and Townscape Protection
Policy DME3 - Site and Species Protection and Conservation
Policy DMH3 - Dwellings in Open Countryside
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).
POLICY REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
Policies G5 and H2 of the DWLP and Key Statement DS1 and Policies DMG2 and DMH3 of the Core Strategy Proposed Main Modifications (May 2014) - Creation of a new dwelling in the open countryside without sufficient justification which would cause harm to the Development Strategy for the borough as set out in the emerging Core Strategy leading to unsustainable development.
Policies G1 and ENV1 of the DWLP, Key Statement EN2 and Policies DMG1 and DME2 of the Core Strategy Proposed Main Modifications (May 2014) and the NPPF - Location and design of the dwelling would cause visual harm to AONB.
Policies G1, ENV1 and ENV13 of the DWLP and Key Statement EN2 and Policies DMG1, DME1 and DME2 of the Core Strategy Proposed Main Modifications (May 2014) - Inadequate information submitted regarding impact on visual amenity, arboriculture and detailed elements of design including site levels, detailed elevational and hard/soft landscaping treatments to adequately assess its impacts.
Create a harmful precedent.
COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION:
Consent is sought for the erection of a three bed dwelling at land to the northeast of Whitehall Lane within the AONB. The proposed dwelling is of a contemporary design – a block form with flat sedum roof over timber boarded and glazed walls. The submitted elevational details do not show a north-eastern elevation of the proposed house nor do the floor plans match the elevational details given. Access to the dwelling is proposed from an existing gateway through a hedgerow onto Whitehall Lane with the submitted Design and Access Statement commenting that there will be a gravelled track with central grassed strip leading to the dwelling with a hard standing to the front of the garden in the form of paving to allow parking. It is noted that no details have been provided regarding the potential impact on the roadside hedgerow and existing trees within the site from the creation of the driveway and any relevant visibility splays. There are also details lacking on topography as this is a steeply sloping site with the land rising sharply from the roadside in a northerly and north-easterly direction and there is no indication as to whether the house will be cut into the hillside or any retaining structures necessary.
In assessing the appropriateness of this scheme it is important to have regard to a number of considerations namely principle of development, highway safety and visual amenity as follows:
The Design and Access Statement notes that the application site lies within the curtilage of ‘The Ridge’ yet the application form describes the current use of the site as vacant field. Notwithstanding this discrepancy in the submission documents it is important to have regard to the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) and that in determining planning applications the presumption in favour of development should be applied (NPPF).
In relation to the saved Local Plan it should be recognised that the strategic policies in relation to settlement boundaries are considered out of date and that there may be a need to accommodate development on greenfield land outside the existing settlement boundaries having regard to the emerging Development Strategy of the Core Strategy. As these policies are out of date the policies of the NPPF, NPPG and emerging Core Strategy become far more material to the determination of planning applications.
The NPPF at its heart has a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It makes clear in paragraph 14 that for decision taking purposes this means (unless material considerations indicate otherwise:
·  approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and
·  where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:
Ø  any adverse impacts of doing so would significant and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
Ø  Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted eg AONB.
Paragraph 7 of the Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) and paragraph 6 confirms that policies set out in paragraphs 18 – 219 of the Framework taken as a whole constitutes the meaning of sustainable development.
In accordance with the economic role of sustainable development, housing is seen as a key component to economic growth and is recognised as such not only within the Framework but in the Government Policy ‘The Plan for Growth’. The delivery of new housing of the right type, at the right time in the right location is fundamental to economic growth but what must be remembered is that this application is for a single dwelling and thus its contribution is limited. Para 47 of the NPPF requires LPA's to boost significantly the supply of housing and the theme throughout is that LPA's should make every effort to objectively identify and then meet housing needs. However, as is explained later within this report, the Council is in a position to identify a five year supply of housing sites in accordance with the Development Strategy of the emerging Plan. Thus whilst the proposal accords with the economic dimension of the NPPF, its location outside and divorced from any settlement boundary means the benefits are not so significant in this respect to outweigh the Development Strategy of the emerging Plan.
The social role of the NPPF seeks to support communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generations and by creating a high quality built environment. It has been determined that the outstanding housing requirement for the 32 ‘other’ settlements in the borough (outside the Principal Settlements of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley) will be directed to the most sustainable of these (Tier 1) and that in Tier 2 villages and the open countryside residential development will be restricted to specific categories – none of which apply to this particular proposal for a single market dwelling that lies within open countryside. Thus, the contribution of this site to this aspect of the social role of the NPPF is limited. In respect of creating a high quality built environment this is a matter to be examined in association with the environmental role of the NPPF which seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment.
The site is within the AONB which is a designated landscape in NPPF terms whereby under para 115 great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in … AONB’s which have the highest stated protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. As stated previously the property proposed is of a contemporary design however on the basis of the information submitted I am of the opinion that approval of this scheme would be to the visual detriment of the AONB. Para 60 of the Framework states that LPA's should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative but para 55 advises that LPA's should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
·  The exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should:
Ø  be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;
Ø  reflect the high standards in architecture;
Ø  significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
Ø  be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
There is no evidence to suggest that the design has been developed to take account of or has been informed by site levels, characteristics or constraints or have regard to the defining characteristics of the surrounding area. Given its location it will appear divorced from the small ribbon of development to the north east on higher ground. The lack of detailed information in respect of topography, cross sections, details or extent of hard standings around the dwelling, information on the potential effect on trees/hedgerows and coherent detailed design of the dwelling does not fundamentally effect the conclusion that a building of this form, in this location would be to the significant detriment of visual amenities of the immediate and wider context undermining the character of this protected landscape. Thus, I cannot conclude that the proposal accords with the environmental role of sustainable development as outlined within the Framework.
Turning to the Core Strategy this was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in September 2012 with the formal Hearing Sessions of the Examination in Public (EiP) taking place between 14 and 22 January 2014. Following those sessions it was considered that a series of Main Modifications be made for the purposes of soundness with those proposed Modifications out for a six week consultation period from 23 May to 7 July 2014. The Development Strategy put forward in Key Statement DS1 as proposed to be modified (Main Modification 21 & 25) has already been mentioned and this seeks to direct the main focus of new house building to the Strategic Site and the Principal Settlements of Clitheroe, Longridge and Whalley and Tier 1 villages which are considered the more sustainable of the 32 defined settlements. It further proposes that in the remaining 23 Tier 2 villages (which includes Grindleton) development will need to meet proven local needs or deliver regeneration benefits. In respect of dwellings in the open countryside such as this site these are covered by Policy DMH3 which similarly seeks to resist such developments unless they are to meet an identified local need. Whilst this site is outside the defined settlement limit as set out in the Districtwide Local Plan that boundary is out of date and new boundaries will be set out in a DPD on Site Allocations to form part of the Core Strategy in due course. However the shift in the emerging Core Strategy as a result of the proposed Main Modifications to define different tiers of settlements and appropriate levels of development therein is an up to date indicator that the Council has moved into a position whereby it has up to date evidence to assist fully when it comes to establishing the principle of residential development outside the Principal Settlements and Strategic Site. This will be used to inform the definition of settlement boundaries in due course and this policy position is now subject of consultation. Thus the weight attributed to it must be proportionate.
In respect of the housing requirement for the borough, an annual figure of 280dpa is put forward in the Proposed Main Modifications to the Core Strategy and this has also been adopted for Development Management purposes. In terms of five year land supply, the latest position (31 March 2014) is that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5.16 year supply using the Sedgefield method of calculation. The figure of 250dpa was considered at the Hearing Sessions of the EiP and has now increased up to 280dpa as a result of comments made by the Inspector following on from those sessions in January of this year. Housing provision is a benefit when it is of the right type and in the right location but the ability to demonstrate a five year supply alters the weight to be attributed to this ‘benefit’ in the planning balance under para 14 of the NPPF when determining applications. This said, the modification in relation to the 280 figure is subject of public consultation and may still attract objections and thus the weight to be attached to this and the emerging Development Strategy must be reflected in the overall planning balance. As a consequence I consider that whilst the principles of development still remain the in the first instance to be assessed against the provisions of the NPPF (due to the fact the Core Strategy has not yet been adopted) the weight to be attributed to the Core Strategy has increased post the EiP sessions and this, coupled with the ability to demonstrate a 5yr supply of housing, must be reflected in any decision taken.
Turning to other matters it is noted that the County Surveyor does not raise an objection in principle on highway grounds although in his detailed observations reference is made to the fact that the visibility of the access is of a substandard nature being 108m instead of the required 153m in either direction. Given the rural nature of the road he considers the reduction acceptable. In respect of parking, reference is made to the need for two parking spaces and that from the details submitted regarding layout there is the possibility to accommodate these. Thus no objections are raised on highway safety but the lack of information regarding internal layout within the site means no clarity concerning vehicle manoeuvring within the site or adequate turning areas has been provided. There is room to accommodate these within the red edge but the lack of detail means the visual impact of such areas cannot be fully assessed at this time.