A - Charles Church
Site A - Application 13/00114/FUL dated 05/02/13 - Charles Church - GRANTED PERMISSION
Planning Inspectors summary of conclusions
"Conclusion
72. The proposed development would involve building on a previously undeveloped agricultural field, extending the settlement of Alderton into the adjoining countryside. This would have a harmful, albeit not extensive, impact on the character and appearance of the affected landscape and would conflict with the objectives of Policy LND2 of the Local Plan. Additionally, in terms of environmental harm, the occupiers of the new houses would be largely dependent on the use of private cars to access employment, shops and other necessary services. This would be at odds with national and local policies aimed at encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in order to reduce congestion and pollution.
73. However, these adverse impacts need to be viewed in the context of the Borough’s serious shortfall of housing, and the evidence base of the emerging JCS, which indicates that villages such as Alderton will need to accommodate a significant amount of new housing in order to help meet the objectively assessed requirement for the Borough. While precise numbers are not yet known, it is apparent that providing the necessary housing is likely to involve the development of sites outside development boundaries, within the SLA or even the AONB.
74. The current proposal would have the social and economic benefit of helping to address the acknowledged shortfall, providing much-needed open market housing and affordable housing. The secured provision of proportionate financial contributions toward local education facilities, play space, sport pitches, NHS services, allotments and public open space would ensure that it had no adverse impact on the existing services and infrastructure of Alderton.
75. Placing all of the relevant material considerations in the balance, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not outweigh the benefits. It should therefore, by reference to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, be granted planning permission.
76. I understand the concern raised by APC that permitting this development may “set a precedent” for others. Let me make it very clear that my decision in this appeal should not be interpreted as a finding that Alderton is necessarily a “sustainable location” for any further residential development. Rather, any proposal for such development will need to be assessed on its own site-specific merits, in the context of the Development Plan and national policy then in place. Substantially increasing the number of dwellings in a settlement without proportionate increases in infrastructure, employment opportunities and other local services risks eroding community cohesion, and the fact that 47 dwellings have now been allowed on appeal will be a consideration to be weighed in the balance when considering any future proposals."
72. The proposed development would involve building on a previously undeveloped agricultural field, extending the settlement of Alderton into the adjoining countryside. This would have a harmful, albeit not extensive, impact on the character and appearance of the affected landscape and would conflict with the objectives of Policy LND2 of the Local Plan. Additionally, in terms of environmental harm, the occupiers of the new houses would be largely dependent on the use of private cars to access employment, shops and other necessary services. This would be at odds with national and local policies aimed at encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in order to reduce congestion and pollution.
73. However, these adverse impacts need to be viewed in the context of the Borough’s serious shortfall of housing, and the evidence base of the emerging JCS, which indicates that villages such as Alderton will need to accommodate a significant amount of new housing in order to help meet the objectively assessed requirement for the Borough. While precise numbers are not yet known, it is apparent that providing the necessary housing is likely to involve the development of sites outside development boundaries, within the SLA or even the AONB.
74. The current proposal would have the social and economic benefit of helping to address the acknowledged shortfall, providing much-needed open market housing and affordable housing. The secured provision of proportionate financial contributions toward local education facilities, play space, sport pitches, NHS services, allotments and public open space would ensure that it had no adverse impact on the existing services and infrastructure of Alderton.
75. Placing all of the relevant material considerations in the balance, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not outweigh the benefits. It should therefore, by reference to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, be granted planning permission.
76. I understand the concern raised by APC that permitting this development may “set a precedent” for others. Let me make it very clear that my decision in this appeal should not be interpreted as a finding that Alderton is necessarily a “sustainable location” for any further residential development. Rather, any proposal for such development will need to be assessed on its own site-specific merits, in the context of the Development Plan and national policy then in place. Substantially increasing the number of dwellings in a settlement without proportionate increases in infrastructure, employment opportunities and other local services risks eroding community cohesion, and the fact that 47 dwellings have now been allowed on appeal will be a consideration to be weighed in the balance when considering any future proposals."
Planning Inspectors Appeal Decision - Charles Church
|
Charles Church Appeal Decision May14 by Mark Watts-Jones on Scribd |
You can read the Planning Inspectors Appeal Decision on the Alderton website or download a copy from the link below:
| ||
