A controversial outline application to construct four homes in Kingsley has been refused by members of EHDC 's north planning committee. At last week's meeting, councillors voted against the proposal - which would have seen housing built on land adjacent to Southview in Main Road - because they were not satisfied that the dwellings could be accommodated without causing an adverse effect on the local community. Furthermore, no provision had been made for public open space within the proposal. Ward member Warwick Womack said: "I urge members to reject this proposal on grounds of sustainability, Kingsley is not a sustainable location - there is no doctor or school in Kingsley. There is at best a skeletal system of public transport. There is no shop - just a kiosk selling sweets alongside the post office. "There is an issue of privacy and overlooking of Westerkirk House, Dean Cottages and the access is six feet from the front of Dean Cottage. The proposal just meets the criteria of getting a fire engine down there, but two cars cannot get up there causing a dangerous situation of one car reversing onto the main road. "The applicant is proposing to build four houses in his back garden. At some stage he may put his house on the market. Would you want to buy a house with four others in the back garden? "An inability to sell could result in an application for demolition and to build more houses on the site which would result in a mini housing estate at that end of Kingsley," Mr Womack said. By an eight to seven majority, members voted to go against the planning officers' recommendation which indicated that permission should be granted, Case officer Keith Oliver originally reported: "Kingsley is identified as a settlement area where further development is not normally permitted. While Kingsley was not considered appropriate to receive specific allocation it is considered that some limited development can be accommodated." Mr Oliver added, at last Thursday's meeting, that he was happy in principle with the development and pointed out that the application was within the settlement boundary and there were no policy reasons for refusal. He also mentioned that the proposal could be altered to ensure that it is in-keeping with the character of the area. Mr Charles spoke on behalf of the 43 local residents who objected to the scheme. He said that flooding would be a real risk to any development because the land suffers from poor drainage. He believed the applicants have only provided a superficial study of the flooding and that a system of French drains and underground drainage would be ineffective. Mr Charles added that the neighbouring Westerkirk House is a grade 2 listed building and the new development would be only a few metres away from the boundary which would seriously affect the setting. "The two-storey dwellings will cause overlooking on to other properties, a loss of amenities to locals, and a severe disturbance to residents of 1 Dean Cottages. It would mean a loss of trees, lights and hedges, a lack of sustainability in the location and would be an overdevelopment of what is a back garden," he argued. Brian Davey spoke on behalf of Kingsley Parish Council, which agreed with many of the points put forward by the residents' spokesman. The applicant's spokesman said that the land had been identified as being suitable for development and that there were no objections from the Highway Authority regarding access. The spokesman highlighted that the four dwellings represent 30 properties to a hectare which is in line with governing regulation. He also said that the Environmental Agency survey had no objections regarding drainage. Anthony Williams commented: "I think development will take place. If we turn it down and it went to appeal we wouldn't be able to uphold it on the principle of development. I suggest the application should be deferred because we need to see illustrative plans showing the proposed height of the buildings before we can make a proper decision. Planning officer Chris Murray said: "The government has told us that we have to build houses somewhere and you (the councillors) identified the site as being capable of taking future development. This proposal is not dense enough and to suggest a lower figure would be to fly in the face of government ruling. "It can't be described as cramped because we have no layout yet, this is an outline. Can four dwellings be accommodated in a satisfactory manner and without harm to surrounding properties? Yes." Zoya Faddy was completely opposed to the plans. She felt that it was a "back-land development" and would have an adverse effect on the character of the village. The committee members rejected the proposal and voted that the applicant should return with a full planning application with all the necessary details.
