A development of family homes in rural Preston has been unanimously rejected.

Plans were lodged by Melrose Homes to build 14 detached houses on land south of D'Urton Lane and east of Midgery Lane in Broughton.

By The Newsroom
Monday, 15th February 2016, 1:17 pm
Updated Monday, 15th February 2016, 2:20 pm
Guild Wheel: Signs on DUrton Lane, close to the proposed site, put up in protest against previous developments
Guild Wheel: Signs on DUrton Lane, close to the proposed site, put up in protest against previous developments

But officers recommended the plans for refusal, and councillors agreed the application should be thrown out.

Senior planning officer Lucy Embery said: “The properties are designed as five and six-bedroom houses.

“The scale and height are considered acceptable and so is the mixed palette and materials.

“The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of design.

“However it’s in an urban location, it’s over the 0.5 hectare threshold but doesn’t have any affordable housing.

“The proposal is also considered to be very low density.”

The plans were recommended for refusal on the grounds of a lack of affordable housing, and an inefficient use of the land.

A report considered by councillors said: “The site is within the urban area, and the size of the site is over the threshold of 0.5 hectares that requires 30 per cent affordable housing to be provided.

“The proposed development for 14 dwellings does not provide for any affordable housing and the proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policy 7, and the Central Lancashire Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.”

The report also said the density of the proposed development was too low.

It said: “The application site is a greenfield site and the proposed density of 14 dwellings per hectare is not considered to represent efficient use of this land.

“The layout shows 14 large detached properties and it is not considered that there are any material considerations that require density to be this low.

“The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 5 of the Core Strategy in that it does not make efficient use of the land.”

Committee chairman Coun Brian Rollo said: “The recommendation is for refusal for the two reasons.

“I agree fully with the officers.”

The application was rejected unanimously.