Site for the development of up to 135 homes (including 46 affordable homes), public open space, new access (including demolition of 144 Aylestone Hill).  Structural landscaping, sustainable drainage including balancing ponds and infrastructure and associated works.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Site for the development of up to 135 homes (including 46 affordable homes), public open space, new access (including demolition of 144 Aylestone Hill).  Structural landscaping, sustainable drainage including balancing ponds and infrastructure and associated works.)

(Councillor DW Greenow left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J O’Donnell, a resident, presented a statement on behalf of Herefordshire Nature Trust.  Mr B Stephenson, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor N Nenadich, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He supported the application although his fellow ward member had reservations about it. 

·         The applicant had provided reports that addressed his initial concerns and with regard to some of the environmental issues the scheme could provide betterment.

·         The scheme included much needed provision for 2 bed bungalows.

·         The size of the development was significant but the developer proposed to provide green space and an acceptable distance between properties.

·         The City needed additional housing to generate economic growth.

·         The site had an historical value and the development would have some adverse impact but on balance he considered it had merit.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Attention was drawn to the detailed comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) and their view that planning permission should be refused.  The Conservation Manager had expressed concern about the reliance placed on vegetation in the longer-term for screening in order to mitigate adverse visual (and landscape) effects.

·         The site was a sensitive location on the City boundary.  The City Council had sought to protect the open aspect to the Lugg meadows.

·         The Scheme had no regard to the sustainable building code and the need to reduce energy bills.

·         The size of the development was of concern.  The area would be compromised by the development.

·         One Member noted that the statutory consultees had no objection to the proposal.  Another highlighted, in contrast, the reservations expressed by local bodies and the Conservation Manager (Landscape).

·         It was requested that wildlife corridors be protected.

·         Clarification was sought on the arrangements for the maintenance of the frontage to the Lugg Meadows.  The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the provisions in paragraph 6 of the draft heads of terms appended to the report.  Some Members expressed concern about the robustness of these provisions.  The Development Manager commented that it would be problematic to seek to go beyond standard statutory provisions.

·         A development of the size proposed could not be wholly screened by landscaping works.

·         The site would not have been considered for development if it had not been for the absence of a 5 year housing land supply.

·         The Conservation Manager had stated in the section on internal council advice set out in the report that the proposal would be contrary to saved UDP policies LA2, LA3, S7 and DR1.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England had also suggested grounds for refusal including policy E15.

·         The negative impacts significantly outweighed the benefits in this case.

·           The Development Manager commented that Members had been advised in a recent training session, that in the absence of a five year housing land supply they would need to take some difficult decisions.  The Council would make no headway in providing the necessary housing development if it did not permit applications such as the one before it.  Weight should be given to the representations submitted by national bodies.  The development would not be wholly screened but there would be sensitive landscaping and protection of green corridors.  Removing existing septic tanks, which currently ultimately overflowed into the Lugg Rea, would offer betterment.  He supported the Case Officer’s conclusion together with the S106 conributions.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He supported the need for housing development and infrastructure to provide growth.

Having regard to the issues raised in debate, the NPPF, and the significant landscape impact set out by the Conservation Manager in the report it was suggested that the following reasons would form a basis for refusal of the application:  LA2, LA3, S7 and DR1.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication: LA2 - landscape character and areas least resilient to change, LA3 - setting of settlements, S7 – Natural and historic heritage and DR1 – Design.

Informative

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reasons for refusal.  Furthermore, Members of the planning committee which took the decision to refuse planning permission have been asked to consider whether there are opportunities to amend the development to address this harm.  Where a potential way forward has been identified, this has been communicated to the Applicant. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.