Outline proposal for the erection of 60 dwellings (including 21 affordable houses) and a change of use of land to form community open space.

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

(Outline proposal for the erection of 60 dwellings (including 21 affordable houses) and a change of use of land to form community open space.)

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 W Soilleaux, Chair of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Snowdon, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Eacock, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DW Greenow, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         In his presentation the Principal Planning Officer had indicated the number of current applications for housing development within Bartestree and Lugwardine.  The amount of proposed development was unsustainable.

·         Officers acknowledged in the update issued to the Committee that “the development would fundamentally alter the character of this part of the settlement.”

·         The proposed development was close to Grade 11 listed building and would remove an area of parkland in the heart of a rural village.

·         The development would represent over half of the planned growth for Bartestree and Lugwardine within the lifetime of the emerging Hereford Local Plan to 2031.

·         A substantial amount of mature hedgerow would be removed which it would take a considerable time to replace.

·         The proposed footpath did not reach to the village shop discouraging pedestrians from using the store and raising concern about pedestrian safety.  This was not sustainable development.

·         The Parish Council was working hard to develop a Neighbourhood Plan.  A number of sites had been identified where small pockets of development could be accommodated within the village and where the new residents would be able to participate in village life. 

·         The development would not be countenanced if it were not for the absence of a five year housing land supply.

·         There were a number of grounds for refusing the application including: the impact on landscape character and heritage assets, and pedestrian safety.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was important that local communities determined their future.  The views of the Parish Council and the local ward member in opposing the scheme should be given weight.

·         The absence of a five year supply of housing land was placing pressure on the Committee to grant permission for development where in other circumstances it would not approve development.

·         Officers had acknowledged that the development would fundamentally alter the character of this rural village.  There were alternative sites within the village where small developments that were in keeping with the village’s character could be accommodated.

·         The site had been identified for housing within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.  However, the landscape value of the site was high and the effect on the setting and open space, including unregistered parkland, was significant.

·         The scheme would have a substantial adverse impact on listed buildings and trees.  If the scheme did proceed it was requested that action be taken to preserve the trees.

·         It was also requested that the developer should provide a better quality of housing than was being proposed.  This was particularly important in the context of the harm to the landscape and setting of nearby listed buildings.

·         The proposed scheme was a large development.

·         Concern was expressed about the cumulative effect on the village given the number of current applications for housing development in the area.

·         The application for outline permission should be supported noting that work was available in the City and nearby Market Towns and that the applicant had offered to gift public open space.  Consideration could be given to the detail at a later stage. 

·         In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer commented that the western parcel of land had been identified by the Parish Council for development as a playing field but the Council had been unable to purchase the land. The developer had agreed to gift two acres for community open space. Very little weight could be given to policy RST 4 – safeguarding existing recreational open space, as he planning permission for change of use of the land had expired.  In terms of the density of the development, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had identified the site had the capacity for 110 homes rather than the up to 60 proposed. In terms of infrastructure there were no medical facilities in the village, but the NHS had not objected to the proposal.  The primary school was full and the site did not permit expansion.  However, it was to be noted that Planning Inspectors generally did not refuse applications on the grounds of school capacity.  Negotiations were continuing on an S106 contribution.  In terms of the cumulative impact of applications for development within the locality each application would have to be determined on its merits.  The Hagley Court parkland was privately owned and not open to the public but it was crossed by Public Rights of Way.  There was a footway from the development towards the local shop, the only gap in the footway being the 2metre strip fronting the entrance to the shop.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had submitted detailed comments in objecting to the scheme to which the Committee should have regard. 

Having regard to the issues raised in debate and the NPPF, the following reasons for refusing the application were advanced: policies S1, S2, DR1, LA2, LA3, LA4, and HBA4 with LA5 as potentially a further reason.

The Development Manager commented that the Committee would be faced with a number of similar applications for housing developments of a similar size across the County given the absence of a 5 year housing land supply.  The evidence was that Planning Inspectors were allowing appeals where authorities could not demonstrate that there was a supply of housing land.  Development had been permitted for this reason even where there was protected landscape including in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The officers’ view as set out in the report was that the harm identified did not outweigh the benefits and was not significant enough to warrant a recommendation for refusal.

The Legal Officer commented that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application it needed to confirm its reasons.  A number had been advanced relating in particular to the sustainability of the development and the harm to landscape character as reflected in the response by the Conservation Manager (Landscape) as set out in the report.  The Committee needed to consider whether the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the Scheme.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the harm done by the scheme did significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and he supported the grounds for refusal that had been advanced.

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: S1 – Sustainable Development, S2 – development requirements, DR1 - design, LA2 - landscape character and areas least resilient to change, LA3 - setting of settlements, LA4 – protection of historic parks and gardens, and HBA4 – setting of listed buildings.

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.