BECKINGTON NEEDS YOU TO OBJECT
TO 30 NEW HOUSES ON GREAT DUNNS CLOSE (REDROW)
Despite losing their appeal to the planning inspector in July 2018 to build 28 houses, Redrow have submitted a new application to build 30 on the same site.
Redrow feel they now have the opportunity to succeed because since then Mendip District Council (MDC) has been progressing Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2). Beckington Parish Council (BPC) had approved the version of LPP2 that was submitted to the Local Plan inspector. In examination hearings the inspector then identified a need for MDC to allocate sites for a further 505 new homes for LPP2 to be approved. Without consultation MDC has modified LPP2 and allocated all of these to primary and secondary villages in the North East of the district, including Beckington. In modification MM69 MDC proposes to allow a minimum of 28 new homes on this site on Great Dunns Close, Beckington.
Beckington and other Parish Councils are objecting to these late stage modifications but the hearing will not be until September 22md. Redrow know this and are hoping that MDC will approve this application in August as it is in line with their modified, although unratified LPP2.
We need as many people as possible to object to MDC before July 23rd. (We have asked for an extension - but do not take this as a given).
It is CRITICAL that each person writes an individual objection. Any objections that have similar wording will all be recorded by MDC as being only one objection. Please look at the different valid planning reasons for objections below, choose one or two and rephrase them in your own words.
Beckington has already had too many new homes built
Beckington has already had 108 new homes: 196% more than the LPP1 minimum of 55 for the period to 2029.
In the explanatory text of CP2 of the LPP1 it states that when distributing new rural development each should be appropriate to the place's existing scale and have regard to environmental constraints. It states that village housing requirements are based on a proportionate growth of 15% of the existing housing stock, based at 2006, across the Primary (and Secondary) Villages. This gives a village requirement for Beckington at 55 dwellings for the plan period (2006 - 2029). We have exceeded this as 108 new homes have been built: 196% more than in LPP1.
30 new homes in Beckington would lead to further disproportionate growth in Beckington at a rate out of step with the overall spatial distribution strategy of the development plan and are thus not sustainable. It would increase the existing exceedance of the 15% guideline figure in the LPP1. 30 more homes would be an increase of 251% versus the LPP1 minimum of 55 taking it to the highest growth in all Mendip villages.
The number of houses in Beckington has already increased by 29.5% in the plan period: twice the 15% guideline figure. Another 30 would be an increase of 37.7%: approaching three times the 15% guidance.
These homes should be built in the Mendip villages that have not delivered their LPP1 requirement
There are 16 primary villages in Mendip. Whilst Beckington has already had 196% more new homes versus the LPP1 minimum (108 versus 55) nine of the primary villages have not yet delivered their LPP1 requirement: Nunney 4%; Westbury sub Mendip 24%; Burleigh 29%; Stoke St Michael 40%; Chewton Mendip 40%; Ditcheat 44%; Croscombe 46%; Mells 50%; Draycott 54%. These 30 new homes should be built in these primary villages, other secondary villages and the five towns of Frome, Glastonbury, Shepton Mallet, Street and Wells as in CP2, not Beckington.
Outside development limits
The site is located outside the development limits of Beckington and in the open countryside so the proposal is contrary to CP1, CP2 and CP4.
Harm to heritage assets
i.The development would harm the setting of the Beckington Conservation Area and a number of listed buildings in Goose Street. This is contrary to paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
ii. the Planning Inspector in July 2018 stated in his ‘Planning Balance' that the 28 homes on this same site "would have a harmful effect on designated heritage assets".
iii.The 2010 Beckington Conservation Area Appraisal (the CAA) highlights important "clean edges" including "behind Goose Street" (to the North) and states that this undeveloped land is important in maintaining historic boundaries, preserving views into and out of the village and providing a setting for older buildings. The "synthesis of appraisal" specifically mentions Goose Street and notes the significance of late medieval and 17th-century surviving houses, usually behind later façades, an extensive heritage of vernacular houses and cottages and a late 18th to early 19th century introduction of fashionable Classical houses.
iv.The proposal would harm the historic link between No 49A Goose Street and the site. This could not be mitigated.
v.The development would change the character of the use of the proposed site from an agricultural field to a managed public open space.
In considering the 28 homes on the same site the Planning Inspector in July 2018 considered the LPP1 was up to date, thus given full weight and so the extra 28 homes were rejected. In his ‘Planning Balance' he stated that they "would be contrary to the overall strategy of the LPP1". The same applies to these proposed 30 new homes and so should not be approved.
Financial benefit would not make the proposal more acceptable
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for the development to raise money for a local authority or other government body. In line with this the Planning Inspector in July 2018 stated that 28 new homes in Beckington would not be made more acceptable by the New Homes Bonus or Council Tax receipts that would be paid by the occupiers (the latter would be payment in lieu of services to be provided). The same applies to these 30 homes.
The extra homes in the North/North East in the LPP2 are not legally compliant and unsound
The sites for the 505 homes in the proposed LPP2 modifications are not legally compliant or sound as they:
i. have not been prepared in line with legal and procedural requirements: making such major changes to LPP2 that affect our community at such a late stage would be contrary to the Duty To Cooperate as there has not been any effective engagement. Further hearings Beckington Parish Council could take part in should be held before adoption of the LPP2;
ii. are to meet the needs of the whole of Mendip as in LPP1 and not of the North East of the district;
iii. are not specific to the North / North East of the district;
iv. would be better in more sustainable locations as in LPP1 spatial strategy CP1 and CP2 and Policy 1;
How do I object?
1. E-mail: Consultations@mendip.gov.uk quoting the application number 2020/1150/FUL.
2. MDC Planning Portal
To use this you will need to register to receive a Planning Search log in and password. It takes three minutes. Go to:
Press the ‘Register' tab. Then log in and search for application number 2020/1150/FUL
NB: due to COVID Mendip cannot accept hard copy letters in the post.
If you have any questions please email email@example.com