Proposed erection of up to 45 dwellings, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works.

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

(Proposed erection of up to 45 dwellings, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works.)

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 S Glover, Clerk to Withington Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Francis, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had been active in the area.  It had identified other locations for housing development in preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The field it was proposed to develop was at the highest point in the village.

·         The access was unsatisfactory.  It would involve demolishing one property and would have a demonstrably adverse effect on the two neighbouring properties and properties opposite the entrance to the site.

·         There was concern about water run-off from the site, there having been recent experience of flooding as a consequence.  However, it was possible that measures could be taken to control this matter.

·         The development was out of keeping with the character of Withington.

·         He asked whether it would be possible to await a full application rather than determining an outline application.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the size of the development.  There was sympathy with written point 2 in the representation from the Parish Council, that, “whilst there is not a five year supply of land in Herefordshire.  It is unreasonable to expect this shortfall to be met by excessive developments in villages when the demand was primarily for housing in Hereford City and the Market Towns.”

·         The Parish Council had also commented at point 13 of its representation that, “at the highest point the impact of the development on the sky line is a significant intrusion into the landscape”.  The development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the village.

·         There had been 64 letters of objection and more weight should be given to the views of local residents, in accordance with the localism agenda.

·         Greater weight should be given to the detrimental effect of large developments on the County’s rural villages than to the absence of the five year housing land supply.

·         There was a risk that the emphasis on the weight to be given to the absence of a 5 year housing land supply had diverted attention from an analysis of the proposed development itself.

·         The Parish Council had identified preferable sites which would meet the housing growth identified for the area in the draft Local Plan – Core Strategy 2013-2031.  It should be contended that Withington itself did not therefore have a lack of a five year housing land supply.  Localism should therefore prevail and the application, whose benefits were outweighed by the harm it caused, and which did not represent sustainable development, should be refused.  At a public presentation only 3% of residents had identified the application site as a preferred site.

·         The Principal Planning Officer commented that the draft core strategy contained an indicative growth target for Withington that equated to 65 dwellings of which 37 had been constructed or for which an extant planning permission existed.  No application had been submitted to develop the Parish Council’s preferred site opposite Orchard House off Southbank road.

·         Attention was drawn to paragraph 5.3 of the report containing representations from the Campaign to Protect Rural England.  This stated that there was “nothing innovative or outstanding about this outline proposal as required by NPPF paragraph 63” (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)) and also referenced paragraph 64 of the NPPF:  "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for Improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions". 

·         None of the statutory consultees or those providing internal council advice had submitted objections to the development.  However, the application offered nothing in terms of quality, longevity and energy efficiency.

·         It was a speculative application taking advantage of the absence of a five year housing land supply.

·         UDP policies LA2 – landscape character and areas least resilient to change and LA 3 – setting of settlements were grounds for refusal.  The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had commented that the proposal would “deplete the visual amenity and recreational public value and the potential biodiversity value of the site.”

·         Water run-off from the site was a concern.

·         It was suggested that in considering the sustainability of the scheme weight should be given to the fact that the application required the demolition of a sound, existing property.  The Development Manager commented that this could not be considered a ground for refusal given that it was proposed to develop up to 45 new homes.

·         There was an adverse impact on the Withington conservation area.

·         The Parish Council had invested considerable effort in developing a Neighbourhood Plan and this was nearing completion.  The weight that could be given to the draft Neighbourhood Plan having regard to paragraph 17 of the NPPF was discussed.  The Development Manager commented that a Neighbourhood Plan could not be adopted until the Core Strategy was approved.  A planning inspector would not attribute weight to a draft Neighbourhood Plan. Members expressed dissatisfaction with this view, it being suggested that advice had previously been given to them that greater weight could be given to such draft plans as they reached a more advanced stage of development.  It was also to be regretted that the considerable efforts being made to develop such plans were apparently to no avail.

The Development Manager clarified that the authority could not insist on a detailed application being submitted rather than an outline one.  Weight could not therefore be given to concerns about design of the scheme at this stage.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that his principal concern was the adverse impact of the access to the site.

It was proposed that the scheme should be refused.  The following grounds were advanced: the adverse impact of neighbouring residents of the proposed access, surface water run off and saved polices LA2 and LA3 of the UDP.

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: the adverse impact on neighbouring residents of the proposed access, surface water run off, and saved polices of the UDP: LA2 – landscape character and areas least resilient to change and LA 3 – setting of settlements.

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.  The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

(The meeting adjourned.)