Application Number : S/2017/0470/MAO Application expiry date : 10 May 2017

Parish : Kings Sutton

Case Officer : Mark Turner-Heslington Applicant : Mr Timothy Woolley Location : - Land at Halestrap Way Kings Sutton OX17 3SF

Description : - Outline application for residential development of up to fourteen dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL FOR THE REASONS SET OUT AT THE END OF THIS REPORT

S/2017/0470/MAO WARD : Kings Sutton WARD MEMBER : Cllr Gregor Hopkins REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE:

Major application

1. APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The site is a grass field enclosed by mixed hedgerows, trees and fencing on the northern edge of King’s Sutton village. It lies immediately to the west of a new housing development known as Halestrap Way, accessed off Banbury Lane, and to the north of Waverley Close (off Wales Street). There is a separate field between the application site and Waverley Close, which is also in the applicant’s ownership. Open fields lie to the north and west of the application site with a sewage pumping station adjacent the northern boundary. A public right of way passes close to the site, to the north-east.

1.2 The landscape is rural and is part of the Cherwell Valley, with the River Cherwell flowing from north to south some 260 metres to the west of the site. The Chiltern Mainline railway also lies some 175 metres to the west of the site. The ground is generally level, but rises toward the south and east where the built form of the village is concentrated.

1.3 The application site is situated on the north-western edge of King’s Sutton, a village located approximately 5 miles south-east of Banbury. The nearest neighbouring villages include Charlton which is around 1.5 miles to the east and Twyford, around 1.5 miles to the west and separated by the M40 motorway. King’s Sutton has a population of around 2100.

1.4 The development of King’s Sutton comprises a mixture of architectural styles in part due to the variation in the age of the properties of the village. Historic buildings are located at various points around the village, several of which benefit from listed building status. More modern development is also a part of King’s Sutton’s character, including housing located off Banbury Lane.

1.5 To the immediate east of the site is a housing development constructed in recent years, with Halestrap Way being the closest. The development comprises a mixture

of terrace, detached and semi-detached properties.

2. CONSTRAINTS

2.1 Open Countryside

2.2 Special Landscape Area (SLA)

2.3 Partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3

2.4 Archaeological Asset Site

2.5 Potential Wildlife Site

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal seeks Outline Planning Permission for up to 14 No. dwellings with all Matters Reserved except access.

3.2 The following supporting documentation has been submitted with the application:

- Planning Statement

- Design and Access Statement

- Flood Risk Assessment, March 2017

- Topographical Plan

- Tree Report, November 2016

- Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement, December 2016

- Ecology Report, August 2013 and November 2016

- Affordable Housing Statement, February 2017

- Illustrative Layout

- Habitat Enhancement to Open Space Indicative Plan (as part of ref.: S/2017/0724/FUL)

3.3 An associated Planning Application has been submitted in respect of the ecological enhancement of land to the south of the development site to create a publicly available wildlife area. The land to the south is proposed to be available for public access as a wildlife area with footpaths provided to allow travel around the land, under application S/2017/0724/FUL, which is also on this agenda). The submitted documentation advises that a number of measures will be undertaken to enhance the ecological qualities of the site, including the provision of ponds and new native hedging and other flora species.

3.4 The appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development are not for determination as part of the application with only the principle of residential use and access to be considered.

3.5 The accompanying Design and Access Statement notes that it is envisaged that the scale of the buildings will be similar to that of the adjacent development in respect of their height and overall massing.

3.6 Access is to be taken from Halestrap Way and continue into the south-eastern corner of the site. It is to then turn toward the northern part of the site terminating in

a turning head.

3.7 The land to the south has been designed to achieve the aims of providing a high quality environment for the public benefit, enhancing the ecological value of the land and assisting with the drainage of the surrounding land. This is subject to separate planning application S/2017/0724/FUL).

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 S/2013/1213/MAF - Erect 10 houses and improvements to surface water drainage system to alleviate current flooding problems in gardens in Wales Street and allotments - REFUSED 30 December 2013

4.2 S/2014/0824/MAF - Erect 14 new dwellings and associated works - WITHDRAWN

4.3 S/2014/2129/MAF - Erection of 14 dwellings and associated works - WITHDRAWN 09/02/2015

Halestrap Way

4.4 S/2009/1157/MAO (Halestrap Way) – Residential development of 40 dwellings (Outline) - APPROVED 22 February 2010

4.5 S/2011/0562/MAR - Approval of reserved matters for a residential development of 40 dwellings (pursuant to Outline Permission S/2009/1157/MAO) - APPROVED 9 August 2011

Land north of Wales Street

4.6 S/2013/1423/MAF - Construction of a flood defence bund along with the diversion of a section of the existing Black Brook - APPROVED 7 January 2014

4.7 S/2014/2085/MAF - Construction of a flood defence bund and associated works including the diversion of a section of the Black Brook - APPROVED 23 March 2015

4.8 S/2017/0777/SCR - Screening opinion on the King's Sutton Flood Management Scheme - Environmental Impact Assessment Not Required - 19 April 2017

4.9 S/2017/0724/FUL - Change-of-Use from Agriculture to Wildlife Area - TO BE DETERMINED (Associated Application)

5. PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

5.1 None sought

6. KEY ISSUES

6.1 Principle of Development

6.2 Design and Impact on the Character of the Area

6.3 Residential Amenity

6.4 Access and Highways

6.5 Flood Risk and Drainage

6.6 Biodiversity (incl. Trees)

6.7 Archaeology

6.8 Contamination

6.9 Affordable Housing

6.10 Contributions to Infrastructure

7. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

7.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan

7.2 SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE LOCAL PLAN (SNLP): Saved Policies G3 (General Principles), H6 (Restraint Villages and Open Countryside), EV1 (Design), EV2 (Development in the Open Countryside), EV7 (Special Landscape Areas), EV21 (Hedgerows, Ponds and other Landscape Features), EV24 (Species Protection) and EV29 (Landscape Proposals)

7.3 WEST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE JOINT CORE STRATEGY (JCS): Policies SA (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), S1 (Distribution of Development), S3 (Scale and Distribution of Housing Development), S10 (Sustainable Development Principles), C2 (New Developments), H1 (Housing Density and Mix and Type of Dwellings), H2 (Affordable Housing), H4 (Sustainable Housing), BN2 (Biodiversity), BN5 (The Historic Environment and Landscape), BN7 (Flood Risk), BN7a (Water Infrastructure), INF1 (Infrastructure Delivery), INF2 (Infrastructure Contributions) and R1 (Spatial Strategy for the Rural Areas)

Material Considerations

7.4 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF): In particular para. 17 ‘Core Planning Principles,’ and Sections 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport), 6 (Delivering a Wide Choice of Quality Homes), 7 (Requiring Good Design), 8 (Promoting Healthy Communities), 10 (Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change), and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

7.5 PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE (PPG): In particular Sections on Design, Flood Risk, Housing Needs and Land Availability Assessments, Natural Environment, and Planning Obligations

7.6 SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL SPG: Residential Design in the Countryside, Residential Extensions (in respect of assessing residential amenity), Nature Conservation, Developer Contributions, Planning out Crime

7.7 KINGS SUTTON VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT

7.8 COUNCIL CORPORATE PRIORITIES: The Council’s 2016/17 Business Plan sets out a five year business strategy which sets out the long-term strategic priorities for the District. These are to (1) Serve the Residents & Business; (2) Protect the District and (3) Grow the District.

The corporate priority of most significance to the determination of planning applications and appeals is to ‘Protect the District.’ It seeks to do this via the key objectives of; (1) ensuring the character of the district is preserved; (2) protect the built heritage; (3) preserve the environmental quality of the District; (4) mitigate the effects of High Speed 2 construction; (5) develop and sustain access to local

services; and (6) deliver affordable housing.

The remaining corporate priorities are of significance to the determination of planning applications and appeals via the key objectives of delivering the Brackley, Towcester and Silverstone Masterplans, increasing tourism and employment in the District, providing enhanced leisure facilities, safeguarding the vulnerable, increasing a return on assets and delivering a high quality service.

The above corporate priorities are considered to be fully compliant with the policy and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

8. CONSULTATIONS

8.1 KING’S SUTTON PARISH COUNCIL: Whilst no objection at this stage, could not support an application immediately adjacent to the operational Flood Plain of the River Cherwell which lacks a compliant Flood Risk Assessment. Note the commitment to provide 7No. Affordable dwellings as part of the application, drawing attention to the strong support in the 2016 Village Survey for the provision of bungalows in housing developments in Kings Sutton.

8.2 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Withdrawn previous objection subject to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) measures implementation.

8.3 NCC AS LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY: On the basis of the revised Surface Water Drainage information, as part of the revised FRA, no objection is raised subject to appropriate conditions.

8.4 WILDLIFE TRUST: No comments received at the time of writing.

8.5 THAMES WATER: No comments received, however note that as part of the 2014 Applications that an objection was received on the grounds that the development is in close proximity to a sewage pumping station and is likely to create problems of noise vibration and odour for future occupiers of the dwellings. As a minimum, no residential property should be located within 15 metres of the sewage pumping station.

8.6 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE POLICE CPDA: No objection to the principle of housing in this location. The illustrative layout provided, although indicative, does show a layout which accords with the SPG on Planning out Crime. A similar layout would raise no objection at Reserved Matters stage.

8.7 NCC HIGHWAYS: A series of comments made by NCC Highways relate to highway implications based upon the Illustrative Plan, namely driveway/parking spaces, conflict with landscaping and refused vehicle tracking within the site. These issues would be considered as part of a Reserved Matters Application.

Note that the adopted road layout for the section 38 agreement on the recent development on Halestrap Way has not been amended to reflect changes to Plot 26 and therefore object until the Section 38 plans are amended.

8.8 NCC ARCHAEOLOGY: No objections subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological works to be submitted, agreed, and implemented. This is to address the risk of archaeological remains (in particular Iron Age

settlement remains) being present and affected by the development.

8.9 SNC PLANNING POLICY: Objection. The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan as it is located in Open Countryside The JCS places strong emphasis on an urban orientated development strategy, and given the location and quantum of development already provided for in the rural areas and the Council’s ability to demonstrate a deliverable five-year supply of housing, the proposal is considered unnecessary and counter-productive to implementing the strategic objectives of the JCS. There are no material planning considerations which outweigh this conflict.

8.10 SNC STRATEGIC HOUSING: The application is a proposal for mixed tenure development including market housing. The site lies outside, but adjacent to the Village Confines. In Planning Policy terms, consider that Market Housing is contrary to the Interim Affordable Housing Policy (Feb 2013) Key Principle 11.

8.11 The West Northamptonshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2010 highlights the increasing shortfall of affordable housing across West Northamptonshire. A recent update to the SHMA demonstrates a district wide requirement of 3,300 affordable dwellings by 2029. The SHMA and local housing needs indicate that between 173 and 182 new affordable homes are required per annum.

8.12 A village level housing needs survey for Kings Sutton carried out in 2007 identified an affordable housing need including 30 Rent (10 x 1/2-bed flats/houses, 7 x 1/2-bed ground floor flat/bungalow, 2 x 2-bed house, 2 x 2/3-bed house, 2 x 3-bed house and 1 x ¾-bed house) and 6 Shared Ownership (1 x 1/2-bed flat/house, 1 x 1/2-bed ground floor flat/bungalow, 2 x 2-bed house, 1 x 2/3-bed house and 1 x 3-bed house).

8.13 Housing development in Kings Sutton since 2007 has helped to meet some of the identified need and, as a result of the date of this survey, this is now considered to be outdated.

8.14 An examination of the Council’s Housing Register (during the course of the application in respect of the need for rented housing only) notes 37 households would consider being rehoused in Kings Sutton Parish with the highest need being accommodation for single people and small families.

8.15 Refer to Planning Policy and the need for the current local housing to be established.

8.16 SNC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: No objections subject to conditions safeguarding against the risks of ground contamination, and requiring the dwellings to be insulated against external noise from the M40 and the railway. In addition it is recommended that no dwelling (including its curtilage) should come within 15 metres of the sewage pumping station, to minimise the risk of any potential noise and/or odour conflicts arising.

8.17 The proposed residential development will be situated adjacent to a recently completed residential development and closer to an existing sewage pumping station which is owned and operated by Thames Water. The area is exposed to noise from road traffic using the M40 and from rail traffic using the Oxford to Banbury line.

8.18 Note that concern had previously been raised by the operators of the Pumping Station regarding proximity of residential development to their sewage pumping

station because of emissions of noise and odour from the plant when operating.

8.19 Risk of land contamination, noting that some land contamination was found on an adjoining site and the need for consideration to be given to any risks of potential land contamination from the existing sewage pumping station.

8.20 SNC BUSINESS SUPPORT UNIT: No objection. It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of approximately £69,612 over 4 years under current arrangements for the Council, with an additional sum paid per affordable home.

Officer comment:- Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. Section 70(4) of the 1990 Act (as amended) defines a local finance consideration as a grant or other financial assistance that has been, that will or that could be provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown (such as New Homes Bonus payments), or sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

In this particular instance, the above financial payments are not considered to be material to the decision as they would not make the development acceptable in planning terms. It would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for the development to raise money for a local authority and hence the above response from the Business Support Unit is therefore provided on an information basis only.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Representations have been received from five neighbouring properties making the following observations:

Recommendations are made regarding sustainable construction techniques;

Note that each house should have a minimum of two on-plot car parking spaces. Parking will need to be significantly improved, more cars being parked on the pavements, and the resultant safety concerns;

The existing road through the area is only wide enough for one car in many places and is not suitable for heavy construction traffic;

The road which immediately accesses the development area is unadopted and is maintained through a management scheme. Concern regarding damage to roads and accountability to repair damage as a result of construction traffic;

Concern regarding vehicular visibility (particularly in respect of No’s 1, 3 and 5 Leadholm Close) whereby the proposed road layout would endanger the new residents as there would be no clear line of sight when pulling out of these parking spaces onto the access road to the development. The submitted plans turn the single lane road into a junction resulting in a three-way traffic movement, making using these parking spaces very difficult;

The junction onto Banbury Lane would be the only access point into the proposed site. At busy times of the day it can be difficult merging onto the main road as there is restricted views in both directions. Banbury Lane provides a short cut to people wishing to travel between the South of Banbury and

Brackley meaning in peak times traffic can be heavy;

Substandard pedestrian visibility and a lack of adequate pavements will create unnecessary and unacceptable safety issues;

Note that the proposed Wales Street Flood Alleviation Scheme has not gone ahead and the water table is very high. The planned development states the intent to lower the level of the field and then place non-permeable surfaces on top which will increase the speed at which water runs off this site into the surrounding flooded fields;

Note that the southern field adjacent to the proposed development and between the site and Black Brook has already been excavated / lowered to act as SuDs protection when Waverley Close (off Wales St) was built. Note that this field should not form part of any Phase II SuDs calculations;

The original FRA indicates that either the property owners, Parish Council or Local Authority would be responsible for on-going maintenance of certain aspects of any SuDs system installed (incl. Swale and infiltration trenches) if adopted. Note that it is unrealistic to expect any of the above to fund this maintenance in perpetuity;

Non Compliance with Council Planning Policy and Government Planning Guidance;

The development site is 'greenfield' and an extension into the Open Countryside. Building on this would be contrary to both Local and National Planning Policy;

Loss of outlook and overshadowing to houses both on Halestrap Way and Leadholm Close, noting that many of the houses are already overlooked and this will significantly reduce privacy;

Increased pressure on local services, namely the local primary school and pre-school and transport;

Consider the Wildlife Reserve to be a feeble attempt by the developer to enhance what is essentially already a wildlife haven. The ecological enhancement of land to create a publicly available wildlife area on land west of Halestrap Way does not appear justified when considering the existing function of the land as an existing wildlife area;

No thought has been put into the plans as to the individuality of King’s Sutton and building houses that respect the character of the area. Greed has forced them to have small plots and most space taken up with parking leaving little space for gardens;

King’s Sutton is a traditional village within a country landscape; the proposed development would have further impact on the character, appearance and setting of the village.

10. OFFICER’S REPORT

10.1 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT: Para. 12 of the NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. The NPPF continues by stating under para. 13 that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

10.2 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan currently comprises the saved policies of the adopted South Northants Local Plan (SNLP) and the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (JCS) adopted 2014.

10.3 The site falls outside the adopted Village Confines, as identified in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. Therefore the proposal would fall to be assessed under Policy H6 of the Local Plan, which states that ‘planning permission will not normally be granted for residential development…in the Open Countryside’ (i.e. outside the confines). Whilst certain exceptions will be considered, such as a replacement dwelling or an agricultural workers dwelling, the development does not meet these exceptions and so cannot be supported in principle.

10.4 In respect of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), Policy R1 of the JCS states, amongst other things, that development within the rural areas will be required to be within the Village Confines. It states that the hierarchy and distribution of the rural housing requirement will be a subject of the South Northamptonshire Settlements and Development Management Policies Local Plan (Part 2 Local Plan) and will be determined by the local need of each village and its role within the rural settlement hierarchy.

10.5 This proposal is contrary to Policy R1 which states that the distribution of the rural housing requirement will be the subject of the Part 2 Local Plans according to the local need of each village and their role within a rural settlement hierarchy, also to be determined and set-out in the Part 2 Local Plan. An appropriately scaled proposal could be promoted through the development of that Plan. The Council also considers that it has met its rural housing requirement as set out in Policy S3 of the JCS through completions, commitments and windfall allowance. As such this proposal does not meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy R1.

10.6 Notwithstanding the above points it is considered that the application is contrary to Policies SA (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), S1 (Distribution of Development), S3 (Scale and Distribution of Housing Development) and S5 (Sustainable Urban Extensions). As such as the proposal is outside of those confines the proposal is inconsistent with the JCS.

10.7 Within the submitted Planning Statement by the Applicant, it is argued that King’s Sutton is identified as a sustainable village and so is a suitable location for further limited housing growth, and the need to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply is a minimum, not a maximum, requirement of the NPPF. Officers consider that this argument fails to recognise the primary importance placed by both planning law and the NPPF on the development plan being the starting point for decision making and would reiterate that in the context of an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, the most appropriate forum in which to plan for any future housing

growth in King’s Sutton is the new Local Plan. Furthermore, King’s Sutton has already experienced significant housing development in recent years, and to allow further housing development in the village at this time, when it is not currently required to meet the Council’s housing requirements, would amount to unsustainable and undesirable unplanned development.

10.8 Notwithstanding the above, the applicant also argues that the proposed development will provide a series of public benefits, namely through the provision of up to fourteen new dwellings within a sustainable village (of which 50 percent are proposed to be Affordable), an economic boost in both the short and long term, support of local facilities, efficient use of land and the provision of an area of land for public open space with significant ecological enhancement measures.

10.9 To support the Appellant’s position, the Applicant references a series of Appeal Decisions, namely:

- Appeal for 5 dwellings at Blisworth and the consideration in respect of Policy R1 (March 2016);

- Appeal for 121 dwellings at Weedon Bec and the consideration in respect of Policy R1 and para. 47 of the NPPF (June 2015);

- Appeal for 70 dwellings at Moulton and the consideration in respect of Policy R1 (June 2015).

10.10 The NPPF advises that there is a need to boost significantly the supply of housing. Housing applications should be considered in context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where a Council does not have a five year deliverable housing land supply then relevant housing policies are ‘out of date.’

10.11 In considering this statement the Council acknowledges the point that para. 49 of the NPPF states that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

10.12 The JCS sets out a target of 6,318 dwellings for South Northamptonshire for the period 2011-29. Between 2011 and 2016 1,671 dwellings were completed in South Northamptonshire. This compares to the requirement for the same period of 1,685 dwellings. Following the application of an appropriate buffer and applying the shortfall to the next 5-year period there is a total need for 1,931 dwellings for the next 5-year period. The trajectory in Appendix 4 of the HLA 2016 and in Table 1, states that over the next five years 2,934 dwellings will be delivered from major sites (sites of 10 or more dwellings) and 334 from minor sites. After making an allowance for windfall sites and applying a lapse rate the Report states that a total of 3,365 dwellings will be delivered over the next 5 years. This results in an 8.71 years supply of housing land. It is clear that the Council considers it can demonstrate a robust five-year supply of housing land.

10.13 Furthermore based on recent appeals in South Northamptonshire District where Inspectors have acknowledged and accepted the saved Policies in dismissing appeals the Council considers that the saved Policies should be taken in account in this appeal and should not be dismissed as out dated.

10.14 Policy R1 of the JCS sets out the Policy for the Spatial Strategy for the Rural Areas including a rural hierarchy and the identified need for dwellings within the Council’s rural areas. It states that the hierarchy and distribution of the rural housing

requirement will be a subject of the South Northamptonshire Settlements and Development Management Policies Local Plan (Part 2 Local Plan) and will be determined by the local need of each village and its role within the rural settlement hierarchy.

10.15 In considering the issue of Policy R1 it is considered that the Policy has three parts, the first deals with the rural hierarchy; the second part provides criteria for residential development in rural areas and addresses development outside village confines; and, the third part provides further criteria that apply when the housing requirement for rural areas has been met.

10.16 In accordance with the first part of Policy R1, the Council is currently preparing its Local Plan Part 2A that will include a settlement hierarchy. Public consultation on issues and options was completed in July 2016 and at its Cabinet meeting held on February 13 2017 the pre submission draft Plan was approved for consultation later in the year. Part 2 of Policy R1 sets out the criteria for housing in the rural areas:

(i) provide for an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes, including affordable housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community, including the elderly and vulnerable;

(ii) not affect open land which is of particular significance to the form and character of the village;

(iii) preserve and enhance historic buildings and areas of historic or environmental importance including those identified in conservation area appraisals and village design statements; and

(iv) protect the amenity of existing residents;

(v) be of an appropriate scale to the existing settlement;

(vi) promote sustainable development that equally addresses economic, social and environmental issues;

(vii) be within the existing confines of the village.

10.17 The Council has met the housing requirement for the rural area by completions and current planning permissions. Para. 4.10 of the 2016 HLA Report 2016 states that ‘the Council has already met the rural housing requirement of 2,360 dwellings as set out in the WNJCS through completions since 2011 or through sites with a current planning permission.’

10.18 The third part of Policy R1 states that ‘once the housing requirement for the rural areas has been met through planning permissions or future allocations, further housing development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it:

i) would result in environmental improvements on a site including for example the re-use of previously developed land and best practice in design; or

ii) is required to support the retention of or improvement to essential local services that may be under threat (in particular the local primary school or primary health services); and

iii) has been informed by an effective community involvement exercise prior to the submission of a planning application; or

iv) is a rural exceptions site that meets the criteria set out in policy H3; or

v) has been agreed through an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.’

10.19 The Council considers that the housing requirement for the rural areas have been met and therefore all proposals need to be assessed against the five tests set out at the end of Policy R1. The Council also considers that it has met its rural housing requirement as set out in Policy S3 of the JCS through completions, commitments and windfall allowance. As such this proposal does not meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy R1. Not only is this proposal contrary to Policy R1 as it is outside the village confines, it also fails to meet the tests set out at the end of the Policy.

10.20 The Applicant has drawn attention to an Appeal whereby the Inspector concluded under para. that 14 that ‘in the absence therefore of up to date details as to where rural housing identified in the Core Strategy outside the confines of villages should be located, a policy silence exists which reduces the weight to be given to policy R1 of the Core Strategy.’ The Council contend that this approach differs from that of the Planning Inspector in the more recent Appeal, ref.: APP/Z2830/W/16/3157712 (land off Banbury Lane, Pattishall, Northamptonshire) which confirms the following:

‘The Council state that there exists a greater than 5-year housing land supply, and that the housing requirement for rural areas (without taking into account future allocations from any future Part 2 Local Plan) has been met. The appellant disputes that this housing requirement has been met but does not provide any compelling evidence to counter the figures provided by the Council so as to indicate that I should conclude otherwise. However, even if it is accepted, as suggested by the appellant, that a 5-year housing land supply is a minimum, and that housing supply should be boosted significantly, the Council’s submissions still suggest numbers significantly in excess of a 5 year supply.

Further, with regard to the housing requirement for rural areas, even if that requirement has not been met, Policy R1 only permits residential development within the rural areas outside of the Village Confines subject to it involving the reuse of a building or in exceptional circumstances where the proposal would improve the local economy or enhance or maintain the local community. I have not seen any evidence to suggest any of these criteria apply to the appeal proposal, whilst in the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I find that the rural housing requirement has also been met and, as a consequence, the proposal would fail to accord with JCS Policy R1.’

10.21 DESIGN AND IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is in a sensitive Countryside location on the edge of a Traditional Village and within a Special Landscape Area, and development of this site will impact on the character, appearance and setting of the village and the character and quality of the wider landscape. Policies S10, H1 and R1 of the Core Strategy along with Saved Policies G3, EV1 and EV7 of the Local Plan all recognise the importance of ensuring new development responds well to the location and setting of the site and the character and appearance of the local area. Likewise Para. 61 of the NPPF recognises that good design goes beyond aesthetic considerations and so planning decisions should ‘address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.’

10.22 Although the development would be viewed, to an extent, as a continuation of the recent housing development on Halestrap Way, it would nevertheless represent a further extension of the built form of the village into the Open Countryside. Moreover

it would appear somewhat detached and separate from the existing development on Wales Street and Waverley Close to the south, with the proposed structured Wildlife Area separating the two. Officers consider this would result in the development failing to integrate with the existing natural and built environment, instead appearing as an isolated and poorly connected extension to the village with unacceptable harm to the character, quality and appearance of the area.

10.23 As a result of the current Application seeking Outline Planning Permission only, the submitted plans are indicative only and the internal layout and detailed design of the proposed development would be a matter for a Reserved Matters application. Inanycase, it has reasonably been demonstrated that a proposal for up to 14 dwellings could be accommodated on-site.

10.24 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: Officers are satisfied that a development could be achieved whereby the layout would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of existing residents on Halestrap Way and Leadholm Close.

10.25 Thames Water has raised concerns about the potential for conflict (noise and odour) to arise between the proposed development and the existing sewage pumping station to the north of the site. Again, the indicative plan notes how a separation of 15 metres from the pumping station could be achieved, which is the minimum distance that Thames Water consider to be acceptable.

10.26 ACCESS AND HIGHWAYS: Para. 32 of the NPPF makes clear that decisions should take account of whether: safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, and Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that developments should be designed to: create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians. Likewise Saved Policy G3(B) of the Local Plan states that new development should possess ‘a satisfactory means of access and provide adequate parking, servicing and turning facilities.’

10.27 It is noted that as part of the 2014 previously withdrawn application that NCC Highways raised concern regarding the parking and access layout of the existing development, the main issue being the parking and access layout to 47 Halestrap Way (Plot 26 of the originally permitted development). NCC Highways appeared concerned that garaging could be reinstated with access off the junction with the proposed development. However planning permission would be required to alter the dwelling to reinstate a garage, and a separate consent would be required from NCC Highways to create a new access. Officers were satisfied that there were adequate controls in place to ensure an unacceptable highway safety conflict would not arise between the existing and proposed developments.

10.28 Whilst it is noted that pedestrian visibility is restricted in respect of No. 47 Halestrap (Plot 26 of the original consent) as a result of the permitted 1.8 metre fence at the entry point of the proposed development site, this has never formed a reason for refusal within any previous prepared reports. Whilst the proposal would in theory result in a three-way junction, the extent of traffic from Leadholm Close, consisting of three dwellings, would be limited and a degree of visibility would still be achievable from the development site albeit restricted by the existing boundary fence. It is evident that a more cautious approach would be necessary when manoeuvring, however in the current instance it is not considered that this would be sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission in the current instance.

10.29 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE: The site is partly within Flood Zones 2 and 3, which

means that the development is at a higher risk of flooding. Residential uses are considered to be particularly sensitive to flooding, and there is also potential for the development to impact on flooding elsewhere. Policy BN7 of the Core Strategy states that ‘all new development, including regeneration proposals, will need to demonstrate that there is no increased risk of flooding to existing properties, and proposed development is (or can be) safe and shall seek to improve existing flood risk management.’

10.30 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application, which includes flood compensation measures to mitigate the flood risk impacts of the development. The Environment Agency (EA) has withdrawn its initial objection on the basis that measures detailed within the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) are implemented and secured by means of a Condition.

10.31 As part of the proposed Drainage Strategy, as a result of the proximity of the site to watercourses, and the unsuitability of large scale infiltration in the impermeable geology, discharge to watercourse is the recommended option for draining the site. It is proposed that the southern section of the site will discharge into the Black Brook tributary, via attenuation ponds, a wetland and a series of swales into a habitat under consideration as part of planning ref.: S/2017/0724/FUL. It is noted that the suggested discharge location of these swales will need to be confirmed at the detailed design stage, dependent upon the delivery of the Wales Street Flood Alleviation Scheme.

10.32 Whilst the EA and NCC as Lead Local Flood Authority have no objection in principle regarding the proposed SUD’s Strategy, this is located outside of the development site and is subject to a separate planning application (recommended for planning refusal (ref.: S/2017/0724/FUL)). On this basis, it is considered that no appropriate Drainage Strategy for the site exists. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy BN7 of the Core Strategy and para’s. 99, 100 and 103 of the NPPF in particular, and so planning permission should be refused for this reason.

10.33 On the matter of foul drainage, Thames Water has not raised any objections in respect of sewerage infrastructure capacity and so the development is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

10.34 BIODIVERSITY (INCL. TREES): The Planning Practice Guidance, dated 2014, supersedes the previous Government Circular on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (ODPM Circular 06/2005), which has been withdrawn. The PPG states that Local Planning Authorities should only require ecological surveys where clearly justified, for example if there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development. Assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the likely impact on biodiversity.

10.35 Natural England’s Standing Advice states that an LPA only needs to ask an applicant to carry out a survey if it’s likely that protected species are:

- present on or near the proposed site, such as protected bats at a proposed barn conversion;

- affected by the development.

10.36 It also states that LPA’s can also ask for:

- a scoping survey to be carried out (often called an ‘Extended Phase 1

Survey’), which is useful for assessing whether a species-specific survey is needed, in cases where it’s not clear which species is present, if at all;

- an extra survey to be done, as a condition of the planning permission for outline plans or multi-phased developments, to make sure protected species aren’t affected at each stage (this is known as a ‘Condition Survey’).

10.37 The Standing Advice sets out habitats that may have the potential for protected species, and in this regard the site.

10.38 Following on from the above, the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance states that an Ecological Survey will be necessary in advance of a planning application, if the type and location of development are such that the impact on biodiversity may be significant and existing information is lacking or inadequate. It also advises that Ecological Surveys should only be required where clearly justified, for example if there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present.

10.39 Previously submitted reports noted the site to be of limited wildlife value, with no evidence of protected species present on the site. Although the previous report dates from August 2013, the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area have not changed significantly and so officers consider the findings and recommendations of the report remain valid.

10.40 Having considered Natural England’s Standing Advice and taking account of the site constraints it is considered that the site has limited potential to contain protected species and their existence on the site is unlikely. As such no formal survey is required and in the absence of which this does not result in a reason to withhold permission. An informative reminding the applicant of their duty to protected species.

10.41 ARCHAEOLOGY: The County Archaeologist has considered the submitted archaeological assessments and reports and the Historical Environment Records and has concluded that there is a likelihood of archaeological remains surviving on the site which would be disturbed or damaged by the proposed development. However a Condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be agreed and implemented is considered sufficient to address this, and therefore officers are satisfied that the development could be made acceptable in this respect.

10.42 GROUND CONTAMINATION: SNC Environmental Protection Officers have commented that there is a risk of contamination affecting the proposed development. However they are satisfied that this risk can be addressed by conditions requiring ground investigation work to be carried out and mitigation measures approved and implemented as necessary. Therefore officers consider that the contamination risks associated with the development can be made acceptable.

10.43 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Policy H2 of the Core Strategy requires that 50% affordable housing should be provided on sites of 5 or more dwellings in the rural areas in South Northamptonshire. The proposal is for up to 14 dwellings and so contributions to Affordable Housing should be sought. A 50% on site provision in this case would amount up to 7 units dependent upon the final development numbers.

10.44 The applicant has noted that the development would provide for fifty percent of the units being Affordable in perpetuity through a Housing Association. Strategic

Housing officers have advised that based upon the Council’s Housing Register, the Affordable Housing contribution should contain at least a mix of 1 bed flats and 2 bed houses to meet local housing need. However, with the exception of the bungalows, this cannot be accommodated by the proposed indicative housing mix which is predominantly 3 or 4-bedroom houses with only two single-storey 2-bed dwellings.

10.45 CONTRIBUTIONS TO INFRASTRUCTURE: Having regard to guidance contained in the Council’s SPD on Developer Contributions, it is considered that contributions towards healthcare, libraries, primary education, refuse/recycling and public open space are required in order to make the impacts of the development acceptable in planning terms. The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into negotiations on a s.106 Agreement to secure these contributions. However at present there is no signed Agreement, and in the absence of this there is no assurance that the necessary infrastructure would be secured. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policies INF1 and INF2 of the Core Strategy.

11. CIL LIABILITY

11.1 This development would attract a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment under the Council’s current CIL Charging Schedule. However due to the outline nature of the development the figure is currently unknown. The CIL charge will be calculated fully upon the submission of a detailed reserved matters application. Certain reliefs and exemptions are available and if claimed could result in a zero charge, unless disqualifying events occur. (For further information relating to CIL please visit http://www.southnorthants.gov.uk/7143.htm).

11.2 Officer comment:- Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. Section 70(4) of the 1990 Act (as amended) defines a local finance consideration as a grant or other financial assistance that has been, that will or that could be provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown (such as New Homes Bonus payments), or sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

11.3 In this particular instance, the above financial payments are not considered to be material to the decision as they would not make the development acceptable in planning terms. It would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for the development to raise money for a local authority and hence the calculated CIL amount referred to above is therefore provided on an information basis only.

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 The application site is not allocated for development in the Development Plan and is in the Open Countryside, in a Special Landscape Area, outside the built limits of King’s Sutton village. The development would appear detached from and poorly related to the built form of the village to the south, and would appear as a prominent intrusion of built development into the Open Countryside. Furthermore the development would be in addition to existing approved housing developments in King’s Sutton, and is not required to meet the Council’s 5-year housing land supply. Therefore the proposal is considered to be unnecessary, undesirable, and

unsustainable unplanned development in the Open Countryside with harm to the character, quality and appearance of the local area.

12.2 In addition to the above the proposed development does not adequately address the flood risks associated with the development and fails to make adequate provision for on-site affordable housing, and fails to make adequate provision for off-site infrastructure necessary to support and mitigate the development.

13. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

13.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) sets out fundamental freedoms which have been laid out by the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)In making any decisions, South Northamptonshire Council (“the Council”) should have due regard to and take into account any implications that may arise under the HRA. As a public authority, it is unlawful for the Council to act in a manner which is incompatible with the ECHR.

13.2 The rights under the ECHR which the Council views as being the most likely to affect planning matters are: Article 6 (the right to a fair trial); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property).

Article 6

13.3 Officers consider that the applicant has been given the right to a fair and public hearing under its established planning process, and, therefore, has not acted outwith Article 6. The Council recognises that there are others whose rights to a fair trial (such as third party objectors) might be affected.

13.4 Officers have considered this and determined that there are no such rights in play in this matter.

Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol

13.5 Officers have considered the duties under both Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol and have resolved that the application does respect the private and family life of neighbours and does not fail to protect the neighbours’ property.

14. DUTY UNDER THE EQUALITIES ACT 2010

14.1 S149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA”) sets out what is known as the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”). Under the PSED, the Council, as a public authority, must have due regard to the need to, inter alia, advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and has to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who so not share it. The protected characteristics to which the PSED refers are: (a) age; (b) disability; (c) gender reassignment; (d) pregnancy and maternity; (e) race; (f) religion or belief; (g) sex; (h) sexual orientation.

14.2 Officers have considered the application and resolved that none of the protected characteristics is affected or potentially affected by the application.

15. REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. By reason of its siting outside the built confines of King’s Sutton Village, on land that is not allocated for development in the Development Plan, and by reason of the

amount of development proposed which would be in addition to other recent housing developments in the local area, the proposal is considered to be unsustainable, undesirable and unplanned residential development in the countryside. Furthermore, in view of the Council's ability to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the proposal is considered unnecessary to meet the District's short term housing needs. Therefore the proposal conflicts with Policies S1, S3, S10, H1 and R1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Saved Policies H6 and EV2 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan, and the NPPF in particular para’s 12, 17, 50 and 61.

2. By reason of its prominent siting in a Special Landscape Area outside the built

confines of King’s Sutton village, the amount of development proposed, and the degree of separation from and lack of integration with the built form of Kings Sutton village to the south, the proposal is considered to relate poorly to the existing natural and built environment with unacceptable harm to the character, quality and appearance of the area. Therefore the proposal conflicts with Policies S1, S10, H1 and R1 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Saved Policies G3(A), EV1 and EV7 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan, and the NPPF in particular para’s. 17, 58, 61, 64 and 109.

3. In refusing Planning Permission for the proposed Wildlife Area to the south of the

development site (S/2017/0724/FUL), no appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy (SUD’s) is considered achievable in order to mitigate the flood risk impacts of the development as required by the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Therefore the proposal conflicts with Policy BN7 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, Saved Policy G3(M) of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan, and the NPPF in particular para’s. 17, 99, 100 and 103.

4. By reason of the lack of a signed planning obligation making adequate provision for

on-site Affordable Housing that is of a mix, type and tenure appropriate to the housing needs of the local area, the proposal fails to contribute to creating sustainable, mixed and balanced communities with a wide choice of homes to meet local housing needs. Therefore the proposal conflicts with Policies H1 and H2 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and the NPPF, in particular para’s. 17 and 50.

5. By reason of the lack of a signed planning obligation making adequate provision for

contributions toward local infrastructure including healthcare, libraries, primary education, fire and rescue, refuse/recycling and public open space, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure to support the development and to mitigate its impacts can be delivered. Therefore the proposal conflicts with Policies INF1 and INF2 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for Developer Contributions, and the NPPF, in particular para’s. 17 and 203.