Residential development of up to 51 new dwellings of which up to 18 will be affordable.

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

(Residential development of up to 51 new dwellings of which up to 18 will be affordable.)

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, Mr J Davies of Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Fitzgerald, a resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Lane, 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 development would have an adverse effect on the landscape and character of the area.  It was an urban development in a rural setting.  It would be visible from viewpoints in the Wye Valley AONB.  This was in contrast to the sympathetic Frome Park development nearby.

·         A pedestrian access alongside the A438 was not suitable.  The alternative pedestrian route, whilst satisfactory in the Summer, was not so agreeable in the Winter.

·         The proposed vehicular access off the A438 where the speed limit was 40 mph was a concern.  The proposed ghost right hand turn lane, so close to another one providing access to St Michael’s hospice, would be confusing for oncoming traffic.

·         Welsh Water may have submitted no objection.  However, problems with foul drainage were being experienced by those currently living in the locality.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         There was disappointment at the applicant’s lack of engagement with the Parish Council and the local community.

·         Both pedestrian and vehicular access were of concern.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had objected to the development and set out good grounds for refusing the application in the report.

·         There was some support for the application, provided assurance could be provided that proposed conditions 6 and 7 set out in the report would ensure a safe vehicular access, and that a 30 mph speed limit could be imposed; that landscaping would prevent intrusion into the Frome Park development, and that trees and hedgerows would be protected as far as possible. 

·         The Engineering Manager commented that it was considered that a safe access could be provided.  The introduction of a 30mph speed limit would have to be subject to a separate Traffic Regulation Order process.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that there would be a landscaping scheme and condition 16 provided for the protection of trees and hedgerows.

·         Concern was expressed at the weight it was suggested should be given to the lack of a five year housing land supply and the undermining of the Parish Council’s development of a Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The development was disproportionate.

·         Having regard to the provisions of the NPPF, the harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the application and questioned some aspects of the proposed S106 agreement.

It was proposed that the scheme should be refused.  The following grounds were advanced: the. Council’s Saved UDP policies LA2: Landscape character; LA3: Setting of settlements; LA4: Protection of historic parks and gardens; LA5: Protection of trees, woodland and hedgerow; and that the adverse impact of the development outweighed the benefits as set out in the NPPF.

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: Council’s Saved UDP policies LA2: Landscape character; LA3: Setting of settlements; LA4: Protection of historic parks and gardens; and LA5: Protection of trees, woodland and hedgerows, and that the adverse impact of the development outweighed the benefits as set out in the NPPF.

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.