Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.

The Committee deferred determination of this application.

(Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He reported that a further letter of objection had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Tomkins, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JM Bartlett and PJ McCaull the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Bartlett commented on a number of issues including:

·         She expressed concern about the justification for not requiring a S106 agreement and the absence of any provision for the Council to secure benefits for the community should the scheme prove to be more financially viable than expected.

·         The basis for not having an S106 agreement was a confidential affordable housing viability report.  The conclusions of this assessment meant that the scheme included no social or affordable housing.

·         Whilst the site was a brownfield site and in a poor state this did not mean that any application had to be permitted whatever its shortcomings.  The site was in a sensitive location within the Leominster River Meadows Conservation Area.  A scheme of a high quality of design was required, consistent with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         The pressure to give great weight to the absence of a five year housing land supply seemed to be at odds with the provisions of paragraph 17 of the NPPF and undermine the development and importance of a local plan.

·         Many of the proposed units were extremely small in size.  The assessment of housing need in Leominster was that the greatest need was for 3 bedroom houses.  She questioned how the proposal represented sustainable development as defined in the NPPF.

Councillor McCaull commented on a number of issues including:

·         He was concerned about the quality of design and the small size of many of the proposed units.  The location, alongside the railway line, was also unprepossessing.  He was opposed to the scheme in its present form.

·         The scheme would also mean the removal of the building used by the Leominster Rifle and Pistol Club.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Network Rail had identified the need for any lighting from the development not to interfere with sighting of signals or train drivers vision.  They had also requested a trespass proof fence.  It was suggested that this might need to be closed fencing rather than chain-link mesh to avoid train drivers being distracted by lights from cars using the development.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that if the scheme were approved these matters would be discussed with Network Rail.

·         Some concern was expressed about the proximity of the development to the railway line, the nearest dwelling being about 22 metres away.  A number of properties nearby were suffering from cracks attributed to the railway.  In contrast, a view was expressed that modern glazing and other measures could mitigate the impact of the railway.

·         The small size of some of the proposed dwellings and the density of development was a concern.

·         An important footpath ran through the site.

·         The location had experienced flooding from surface water.  The Land Drainage Engineer had stated at paragraph 4.6 of the report that further information on a number of matters needed to be provided.  However, this did not seem to be contained within the report.

·         The location was on an important route and in a conservation area.  Development on the site needed to be of a high quality.

·         The late representation received, to which the Principal Planning Officer had referred in his presentation, set out a number of material planning grounds for giving further consideration to the Scheme prior to determination.

·         The site was a brownfield site in a poor state and needed to be developed.  There were, however, a number of concerns about the application before the Committee including the design and absence of a section 106 agreement.  It was proposed that the Committee should defer determination of the application to allow for further discussions with the applicant and that local ward members should also be further consulted. 

·         It was cautioned that work on the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy had suggested that economic conditions in Leominster were such that a zero rate might be appropriate for Leominster.  Support for the application should not therefore be made conditional on securing a S106 agreement.  However, consideration might be given to making an agreement which provided that, if the scheme were to become profitable, a portion of that sum would be secured for community benefits.

Consideration was given to whether deferral or refusal of the application was the better approach.  The Development Manager commented that either option was open to the Committee.  If the application were to be refused the applicant would have a right of appeal.  The Principal Planning Officer referred to the site’s planning history and cautioned against refusing the application on the grounds of density.  The legal advisor supported the Principal Planning Officer’s view. 

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate. 

Councillor Bartlett drew attention to the grounds of objection by Leominster Town Council set out in the report.

Councillor McCaull supported deferral of determination of the application.

RESOLVED:  That determination of the application be deferred to permit further discussion with the applicant and consultation with the local ward members.