Agenda item

Erection of bungalow on land to rear of 16 Town Farm, North Curry (resubmission of application 24/18/0012)

24/19/0021 Erection of bungalow on land to rear of 16 Town Farm, North Curry (resubmission of application 24/18/0012)

Comments made by members of the public included;

·       Concerns that the development was on a blind road with no pedestrian footpath or visibility splay;

·       Concerns with the large farming vehicles using the narrow road daily;

·       The 30mph limit on this road was not acceptable for the amount of traffic;

·       Concerns that this development would set a precedent for future developments;

·       The development was unsuitable and not necessary for the village;

·       This was a back land development;

·       This development went against Policies, EMDI, permanent loss of historic orchard area, CP8 and DM1D, back land development and detrimental to the character of the area;

·       16 Town Farm and the community had access to this land for the last 15 years;

·       Concerns with Highway comments;

·       Orchard listed on Traditional Orchard Habitat Inventory and had been identified as a habitat of principle importance;

·       7 Trees were felled before a TPO was issued;

·       Concerns that the remaining 8 trees were damaged by ring barking;

·       The planting of new trees on the other side of the village was not a substitute for the loss of this orchard;

·       The site was of ecological value and not worth the sacrifice of one single bungalow;

·       The newly erected fence was not erected when Highways made their observations;

·       Concerns with parking on the Public Highway;

·       Knapp Lane was a hazard to road users; 

·       The area was part of a S106 to act as a green buffer between the new Town Farm development;

·       Concerns that residents had not been consulted;

·       Concerns that there was only a standard response from Highways;

·       The County Archaeologist had no objection to this application;

·       SWT Tree Officer stated that no trees were worthy of protection on the site;

·       Highways stand by original conclusion that they did not have any concerns with this development;

·       Development has separate access;

·       The Wildlife survey was still ongoing;

·       Application was fully compliant within the settlement limit in a sustainable village;

·       The area was under private license for 15 Town Farm;

·       Previous refusal reasons had been fully addressed;

Comments made by members included;

·       Concerns with traffic issues;

·       Concerns with the loss of an historic orchard;

·       North Curry had had a vast amount of development, why destroy this parcel of green land for a bungalow;

·       The residents and PC were against this application;

·       This piece of land needs to be accessible to the public;

·       Concerns with harm to the Community;

·       Biodiversity issues;

·       Access issues;

·       Policy ENV1,the value to local people should count;

·       Highway concerns and the impact on cyclists;

·       NPPF Para 109, protecting natural landscapes, we should be seeking to positively promote this;

·       The Orchards were a recognised habitat and of recognised value;

·       Over development of the site;

·       Climate change was real, we needed to keep the trees onsite;

Councillor Buller proposed and Councillor Marcia Hill seconded a motion that the application to be REFUSED

Reason

The applicant’s preliminary ecology report failed to demonstrate that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity, contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks minimisation of impacts on biodiversity and promotion of net gains for biodiversity. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF and Policy ENV1 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan.