A mixed-use village extension based on garden city principles, including 325 new homes and community facilities, at an existing free-range chicken enterprise on the edge of a Lincolnshire village was refused for conflict with the local plan regarding the scale and distribution of development for the area, without clear community support demonstrated to determine otherwise.
The determining issues in the case related to whether the location and scale of development proposed was right for the village and whether there was sufficient local support for the scheme. The recently adopted local plan policies of most relevance stated that development in “small villages’ such as this one should be limited to developments of around four dwellings unless otherwise promoted via a neighbourhood plan or through demonstration of clear local community support evidenced through a thorough, but proportionate pre-application community exercise. A further policy limited overall growth to a ten per cent increase in the number of dwellings, again unless supported through an NDP or community engagement.
On this issue, the inspector held that whilst the consultation and engagement approach carried out accorded with the BREEAM Communities sustainability framework principles of consultation and engagement and were welcomed and commended, it did not expressly confirm support for the resultant scheme or overall scale of development submitted.
The community were not asked specifically if they supported the 325-home scheme prior to the application being submitted. As that was what the policies required, she held there was conflict in this regard. In addition, she felt the proposal did not meet other aspects of the policy with regard to ‘appropriate location’, considering that it would not reflect the core shape or flow of the village and would project into adjoining countryside.
However, the inspector did not consider the development, if permitted, would restrict appropriate growth in other settlements. In concluding, the inspector found the conflict with the development strategy of the local plan prevailed.
Article originally appeared on Planning Resource
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
