Planning (current)

9 JULY UPDATE: THE PARISH COUNCIL’S OBJECTION TO THE BEECH LANE DEVELOPMENT ARE SHOWN BELOW:

Kislingbury Parish Council strongly objects to the above planning application.

The Parish Council made a wide range of objections to the first proposal in 2022, and believes the application is fundamentally unchanged. Therefore, the Council considers that these objections remain valid.

However, changes have resulted to the Planning Framework as a result of the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) and accompanying Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). This resulted in the introduction of the First Homes Policy on the 28th June 2021. The proposed development relies on this policy exception to justify an application that is outside the development boundary of Kislingbury and is on land not already allocated for housing. Therefore, Kislingbury Parish Council ‘s objections focus on key points arising from this revised policy:

1. Proportionality is defined by Paragraph 72 of the 2021 Framework via Footnote 35 which states that “Entry-level exception sites should not be larger than one hectare in size or exceed 5% of the size of the existing settlement.” In The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision of 13th June 2022 (Reference: APP/Y0435/W21/3282446).This decision relates to an application made in the village of Hanslope which borders on West Northamptonshire. The Planning Inspector decided that either criteria was sufficient to reject the appeal by Clayson Country Homes who had argued that both criteria were required. In this application both criteria apply:

The above figures relate to the entire settlement of Kislingbury, but to put the proposal into a context there are currently 12 properties in the whole of Camp Lane and 18 in Beech Lane, making a total of 30 properties on the two lanes that act as the Village Boundary. The proposal would increase the total on these two rural lanes to 89, a percentage increase of 297%.

2. Conservation Area. The Appeal Decision referred to above highlights the importance of taking into account the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and greater locality.  This assumes even greater significance in the present application as the proposed road widening, verge reduction and footpath changes would materially affect the Kislingbury Conservation Area on its southern boundary. This would result in the urbanisation of the Conservation Area in an attempt to mitigate very real concerns about the safety aspects caused by the increased vehicle movement deriving from this proposal. Currently apart from agricultural vehicles, traffic levels are relatively quiet along Camp Lane. However, this proposal is, as with the Hanslope application and its cul-de-sac design, very car dominated. Within the Conservation Area of Camp Lane houses consist of stone built semi-detached, and detached houses which combine well with the mature vegetation including hedges, wide grass verges and two large greens with mature trees. These emphasise the green and rural character of this area. The Appeal Decision mentioned above highlights that elements which contribute to a village’s character, appearance and local distinctiveness must be taken into account. The Parish Council considers that this dense and tight knit development compares badly with the green and leafy characteristics of this Conservation Area.

Such arguments have been accepted in relation to 3 previous applications in 2009 (S/2009/1126/MAO), 2013 (S/2013/157/MAF) and 2014 (S/2014/0722/MAF). These arguments applied in relation to much smaller (26/28 houses) schemes. All three were rejected because they were seen to harm the character and setting of the area and setting of the Conservation Area.

The Hanslope Appeal Decision found that the proposed scheme would “result in a disproportionate development that would not integrate well with the village, has not demonstrated a sufficient mix of housing and would not reinforce the local qualities of character and distinctiveness.” Applied to Kislingbury’s Camp Lane Conservation Area, this judgement carries even more weight.

3. Status of Camp Lane. Camp Lane, which runs from Hall Farm to the Cross Valley Link Road is an historic lane, dating back to the Eighteenth Century which is currently identified as a restricted byway, defined as usable by any transport without a motor. The current gated element of Camp Lane provides safe links to Duston and Upton for pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers and horse riders away from busy and congested roads. Traffic lights at the Cross Valley Link Road end accommodate horse riders crossing with raised buttons installed by Highways which formalise the arrangement that Camp Lane is used to all intents and purposes as a bridle way within the context of a restricted byway.

The proposal to widen Camp Lane at the Hall Farm end is another instance of this proposal failing to take account of important characteristics of the village by introducing car traffic to this restricted byway. Camp Lane also acts as a biodiversity resource by providing a hedge and tree lined corridor for wildlife which connects with the extended Upton Country Park.

4. Ridge and Furrow. The proposed development would destroy the ridge and furrow that is evidence of the medieval farming that forms an important part of the village’s history. The Parish Council notesthat in May 2019, Planning Inspector Robert Jackson, refused to allow sixteen new homes outside a Warwickshire village on the grounds that ridge and furrow landform acted as a striking aspect of the proposed site and that it represented a non-designated heritage asset which contributed to the agricultural setting of the village and its conservation area. This provides the basis of another objection by the Parish Council as members argue that the same applies to Kislingbury.

Local Services/Lack of facilities. Within the Village Hierarchy, Kislingbury is designated as a Second Level Service Village which means it is an inappropriate location for the kind of over-development that this proposal represents. In addition, local health and education services are being put under increasing pressure by nearby large scale developments. Within Kislingbury there is no doctor’s practice and no dentist.

In strongly objecting to this application the Parish Council is supported by the village as a whole with more than 90 objections to the 2022 application and at a village meeting on the 7th July 2023, 56 parishioners expressed their deep concerns about the proposal. Therefore, the Parish Council asks the WNC planning committee to support the Parish Council and Kislingbury residents in rejecting this application.

The Parish Council thinks that these objections are the ones that will carry most weight. People are free to make their comments but if they can relate them to these key points they will, in our view, be most effective in getting this application rejected.

————————————————————————-

Click here for the Beech Lane development updated documents

https://wnc.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/WNS/2022/0673/MAF#undefined

Click here for the Hodges Lane development

https://wnc.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/2023/5029/OUT#undefined

For other Planning applications, please scroll down this page and in the reference column please click on the reference number and you should then be given the link to click on which should take you directly to the planning page for the proposed planning.

The Parish Council thinks that these objections are the ones that will carry most weight. People are free to make their comments but if they can relate them to these key points they will, in our view, be most effective in getting this application rejected.