Issue - meetings
Land Rear Of Ingleborough View, Station Road, Hornby
Meeting: 31/05/2017 - Planning Regulatory Committee (Item 6)
6 Land Rear Of Ingleborough View, Station Road, Hornby 
PDF 435 KB
Outline application for the erection of up to
11 dwellings and creation of a new access and associated
landscaping for Mr And Mrs Norris
Minutes:
|
17/00170/OUT |
Outline application for the erection of up to 11 dwellings and creation of a new access and associated landscaping for Mr and Mrs Norris |
Upper Lune Valley Ward |
R |
A site visit was held in respect of this item on 27th March 2017 minute 156 (2016/2017) refers.
Under the scheme of public participation, Neil Wallace representative for the Parish Council spoke in support.
It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor Susan Sykes:
“That the application be approved.”
(The proposal was contrary to the case officer’s recommendation that the application be refused).
Upon being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 7 against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.
It was then proposed by Councillor Robert Redfern and seconded by Councillor Dave Brookes:
“That the application be refused.”
Upon being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 6 against and 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.
Resolved:
|
That Outline Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
|
|
|
1. |
By reason of the siting and the extent of alterations required to the southern field boundary and Wennington Road to accommodate a safe and appropriate means of vehicular access to the site with adequate sightlines, together with the provision of a significant length of unnecessary footway along this stretch of rural road extending to Lunesdale Court, would lead to an overly-urbanising adverse impact that would be detrimental to the rural character, quality and appearance of this country road within the Forest of Bowland AONB. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SC1, SC5 and E1 of the Core Strategy, policies DM28, DM35, DM41 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document, saved polices E3 and E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 7, 17 and Section 7 and 11.
|
|
2. |
The development proposed by virtue of the sites position on the north and east sides of a drumlin, partially elevated above surrounding development, together with the inappropriate siting of the vehicular access, would result in overly-prominent development that poorly relates to the existing built form of the settlement and as a consequence will unacceptably encroach the countryside to the detriment of the natural beauty, character and appearance of the AONB and the visual amenity of the countryside area, therefore failing to represent sustainable development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SC1, SC5 and E1 of the Core Strategy, policies DM28, DM35, DM41 and DM42 of the Development Management Development Plan Document, saved polices E3 and E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 7, 17, Section 7 and 11. |