Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Planners recommend Hutton Cranswick homes scheme refused



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build eight new homes on land at Hutton Cranswick have been recommended for refusal by council officers.

Elmchurch Estates have applied for planning permission to build the houses on land to the rear of 99 Main Street.

But planning officers say that virtually all of the application site lies outside development limits in open countryside, where res
idential development is contrary to current policy.

A report to be considered by the eastern area planning sub committee on Monday of next week says: "There are no material considerations that would outweigh this policy objection."

The site adjoins a conservation area and the report states: "The detailed design would be harmful to the setting of the Conservation Area and would involve harm and likely loss of protected trees of amenity value. The limited separation distances between dwellings and trees is likely to be harmful to residents.

"In view of all these reasons, the application is recommended for refusal."

The site is brownfield. It is used for offices, lorry, plant and material storage in connection with a plant hire business, Simpson Civil Engineering Ltd, and there is also an after school club for 20 children.

Planning permission for the relocation of the business to the Kelleythorpe Industrial estate was granted in 2007.

The applicants have argued that the relocation allows business expansion with increased staff numbers and vehicle movements, and the location of the existing site is not appropriate for this expansion.

The applicants have pointed out that residential development is key to funding the development of the new site and the proposal removes a 'bad neighbour' industrial development and removes substantial heavy vehicle and car movements from the village.

But the officers' report to the committee states: "The agent argues in his submitted statements that there are material considerations in favour of the proposal, including that there is a lack of residential sites within the village.

"There are currently 27 plots with planning permission within the parish, of which 24 have not yet been started and it would be difficult to argue that further residential development would meet local needs.

"It is stated that the value realised from the development is required to fund the transfer of the existing civil engineering business to Kelleythorpe Industrial Estate. However, no evidence has been submitted to show this."

The report adds: "It is also stated that the business generates a substantial number of vehicular movements, including heavy vehicles and plant and machinery and that the removal of this traffic from the village would benefit local people by reducing hazards, noise and disturbance.

"While it is agreed that there could be benefits for residential amenity, the existing planning permission restricts the times of deliveries to socially acceptable hours. Public Protection have no record of complaints and there are no recorded injury accidents on the adjacent highway between 2002 and 2006.

"The use operates alongside the applicant's own day nursery building on the site quite safely. This issue does not outweigh the strong policy objections."



The full article contains 507 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 May 2008 3:45 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Driffield
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.