Plans for two large houses on the Linney, Ludlow refused

The plans for two large executive-style homes on the Linney have been thrown out by Shropshire Council planning officers. This is a precious green space that provides a beautiful view from the Linney towards the Bringewood. It is right that these houses have been rejected. We have no need for more large homes in Ludlow. There are plenty of other places to build and what we need most is smaller homes for young people and families.

The latest iteration of the site plans had pushed both houses towards the south of the site in an attempt to preserve the view (14/04328/FUL).

Rejected plans

But the change did not convince planning officers or conservation officers, let alone anyone in Ludlow. In rejecting the scheme, officers said:

Although the site is sustainable locationally in terms of access to services and facilities, it is outside Ludlow’s development boundary as defined in the Council’s up-to-date local plan. For planning purposes, it must therefore be regarded as open countryside, where new open-market housing should be resisted. Moreover, the scheme’s economic and social benefits would be very modest and equally if not more applicable to other, plan-compliant sites, and hence would be insufficient to outweigh the degree of environmental harm which would result from the development’s partial obstruction and urbanisation of public views of the surrounding rural setting, which have been identified as a key characteristic of the conservation area. For these reasons, the scheme is contrary to the relevant planning policies, and it is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Shropshire Council’s conservation team said in August 2015:

It is difficult to argue that this development would in its current form preserve and enhance the area’s character and appearance, and thus the resultant harm must be given considerable weight in determining the application. It is not considered that the scheme would accord with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and on this basis an objection is raised.

Despite the subsequent changes to the plans, the conservation team did not lift its objections to the scheme.

This is the third attempt to develop this site that has been refused. It is time that those wanting to build on it gave up their efforts. They should recognise that this field is best preserved as an open space.