Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application.

(Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.)

(Councillor Bolderson left the meeting during consideration of this item and did not vote on it.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

He added that a further communication from Ledbury Town Council had been received since the publication of the committee update and read that to the meeting.  This is included with the updates appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr P Kinnaird, a local resident, spoke in objection as did Mr S Humphrey of Oruna Ingredients UK Ltd.  Mr S Stanion spoke on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson homes in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor I’anson, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        A disruptive level of noise was unacceptable.

·        There was an onus on the factory to do what it could to ensure noise was not unacceptable for existing properties behind it.

·        She had not been approached by residents about noise at the development site.

·        The overwhelming wish of residents was that the current eyesore was resolved together with road issues that were presenting an accident risk with no speed restrictions in place as required by a Traffic Regulation Order with effect from 1 May 2019.

An adjoining member, Councillor Harvey, also spoke on the application.  She made the following principal comments:

·        The site contravened Core Strategy policy LD1.  Ledbury had a made Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) so there is no presumption in favour of development.  All requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF were met. Ledbury could more than fulfil its target for housing delivery under the Core Strategy, were the application to be refused.

·        There remained an opportunity to bring forward an acceptable development but this required more work.

·        She was concerned that there were many instances in the report where statutory and internal consultees stated that their previous concerns had not been addressed, that because of the state of the documentation they could not see clearly what was being proposed or that without their earlier concerns being answered they were unable to make further comment.

·        Regarding Policy H3 – ensuring an appropriate range and mix of housing, the Ledbury local housing market assessment (HMA) underpinning the core strategy stated that Ledbury required 2 & 3 bed housing, but the application remained skewed towards the delivery of 4 & 5 bedroom homes which no-one locally would be able to afford, making it likely occupants would be commuters or retirees from outside the county – replicating the demographic issue facing the county as a whole.

·        In the detailed consent quashed in the High Court, there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7