Agenda item

Report of the Director of Planning and Property attached.

RESOLVED: (Yes: 9, No: 3)

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed site layout fails to meet paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks positive improvements to the quality of the area.  The layout is of poor design that fails to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of the development density and Design Principle 6 of the Central Lancashire Design Guide SPD.  The proposal would not accord with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

2.    The submission fails to demonstrate that the development would meet an identified local need, with works recently commencing on a residential development on Brindle Road 1.4 miles to the south-west within the PR5 that will provide 43 affordable homes (application ref. 07/2017/2900/FUL).  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy B2 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

3.    The proximity of the proposed dwelling Plot 28 with first floor habitable room windows on the front elevation to the ground floor window serving a habitable room on the south-western side of the farmhouse at Cuerdale Hey Farm will result overlooking / loss of privacy which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of Cuerdale Hey Farm.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan, Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the South Ribble Residential Design Guide SPD.

4.    The height and proximity of the proposed acoustic fencing along the northern boundary of the site, together with the changes in ground levels, would have an overbearing effect on the ground floor habitable room window on the south-western side elevation of the farmhouse at Cuerdale Hey Farm which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of Cuerdale Hey Farm.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

5.    The proximity of the proposed dwelling on Plot 48 to the ground floor windows serving habitable rooms on the northern side of 25 Methuen Avenue, when considering the proposed finished floor level, would have an overbearing effect which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of 25 Methuen Avenue.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan, Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the South Ribble Residential Design Guide SPD.

6.    The proposed site layout, with an acoustic fence ranging from 2m-2.5m along the side of Footpath 108 adjacent to Plot 28, would result in an overbearing feature.  As such the proposed development fails to protect and enhance the public right of way which runs through the site and is contrary to paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Speakers: 5 objectors, Ward Councillor Warren Bennett and the Applicant (Mr Simon Peak of Galliford Try Partnerships)

Address: Land at Olive Farm and Land North of Methuen Drive, Hoghton, Lancashire

Applicant: Galliford Try Partnerships

Agent: Mr Jake Crompton, WYG Group, Quay West at MediaCityUK. Trafford Wharf Road, Trafford Park, Manchester, M17 1HH

Development: Erection of 70 dwellings (including 18 affordable rent and 12 shared ownership properties) details of access, landscaping and associated works (amended description)

RESOLVED: (Yes: 9, No: 3)

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed site layout fails to meet paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks positive improvements to the quality of the area.  The layout is of poor design that fails to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of the development density and Design Principle 6 of the Central Lancashire Design Guide SPD.  The proposal would not accord with Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and Policy G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

2.    The submission fails to demonstrate that the development would meet an identified local need, with works recently commencing on a residential development on Brindle Road 1.4 miles to the south-west within the PR5 that will provide 43 affordable homes (application ref. 07/2017/2900/FUL).  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy B2 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

3.    The proximity of the proposed dwelling Plot 28 with first floor habitable room windows on the front elevation to the ground floor window serving a habitable room on the south-western side of the farmhouse at Cuerdale Hey Farm will result overlooking / loss of privacy which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of Cuerdale Hey Farm.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan, Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the South Ribble Residential Design Guide SPD.

4.    The height and proximity of the proposed acoustic fencing along the northern boundary of the site, together with the changes in ground levels, would have an overbearing effect on the ground floor habitable room window on the south-western side elevation of the farmhouse at Cuerdale Hey Farm which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of Cuerdale Hey Farm.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan.

5.    The proximity of the proposed dwelling on Plot 48 to the ground floor windows serving habitable rooms on the northern side of 25 Methuen Avenue, when considering the proposed finished floor level, would have an overbearing effect which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of 25 Methuen Avenue.  As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies B1 and G17 of the South Ribble Local Plan, Policy 17 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the South Ribble Residential Design Guide SPD.

6.    The proposed site layout, with an acoustic fence ranging from 2m-2.5m along the side of Footpath 108 adjacent to Plot 28, would result in an overbearing feature.  As such the proposed development fails to protect and enhance the public right of way which runs through the site and is contrary to paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.