Erection of 20 no. new houses, bungalows and apartments and associated parking and amenity space.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Erection of 20 no. new houses, bungalows and apartments and associated parking and amenity space.)

The Development Manager 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 M Williams, Chairman of Whitbourne Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Gent, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Evans, landowner, and Mr N Knight, a resident, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He outlined the steps he had taken to seek to ensure that the issues had been discussed in the local community and that there was an awareness of the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         There was concern about the volume of extra traffic that the site would generate and the impact on the A44 junction, and the narrow road from the A44 to the village.

·         He had advocated a revision to the location of the access and the applicants had amended their Scheme.  However, concerns remained about the adequacy of the proposed visibility splays.

·         Verbal confirmation had been provided that a footpath would be provided alongside the road to the development.  He requested that if the application were approved the provision of this footpath should be included as a condition.

·         If the scheme were approved measures should be implemented to moderate traffic speed.

·         Whilst layout and design were subjective matters the report described the house designs in the scheme as not groundbreaking.

·         The application proposed that the affordable dwellings would be provided to code level 3.

·         Whitbourne had a mix of dwellings.  It would be hard to argue that the development was out of keeping.

·         He considered, contrary to the officer view, that given the elevated position of the development the visual impact would be substantial.

·         There were concerns about the water run off from the site and flooding.  It was a peculiarity of the planning system that whilst the report stated that a detailed drainage strategy was required, details did not have to be provided prior to an outline planning application being determined.

·         The development was on grade 2 agricultural land and he was surprised that the report described this as being of low ecological value.

·         The site was outside, although adjacent to, the defined settlement boundary.

·         He invited the Committee to consider the cumulative impact of the following concerns he had identified: traffic, access, road layout, visual impact, flooding and the loss of grade 2 agricultural land.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The original access proposed might have been preferable. 

·         The development created a village within a village.

·         The harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits.

·         The view expressed at paragraph 55 of the officer report that, “Government guidance is clear that ‘decision takers’ can only attach weight to Neighbourhood Plans once they have been submitted to the local planning authority for examination.  As such no weight can be given to the Whitbourne Neighbourhood Plan at this stage.” was questioned suggesting this was contrary to the guidance offered on the Government’s planning portal that the greater advanced the plan the greater the weight that could be given to it.  Greater weight should therefore be given to Whitbourne’s draft Neighbourhood Plan.  It was noted that the Parish Council was proposing that development needs could be met through infill and conversions for the period of the draft Core Strategy.

·         Employment opportunities were available in Bromyard and Worcester meaning that  most residents of the new development would have to drive to work.  In addition Whitbourne Primary School had recently closed.  It was therefore questioned whether the development was sustainable having regard to the NPPF.

·         Whilst the UDP might have designated Whitbourne as a main village circumstances changed.  The village was content with its character as set out in its draft Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The site was elevated and visually intrusive and outside the settlement boundary.

·         The Parish Council had objected to the proposal, and their objection was supported by 53 letters of objection.

·         It was questioned whether housing need could be met by infill and conversions and whether such properties would be affordable to young families.  Villages needed young people if they were to survive.

·         The Development Manager commented that the site had been identified as having low constraints in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.  That was being reviewed but the draft core strategy identified Whtibourne as a location suitable for proportionate development.  He considered that the development was sustainable.  He acknowledged, that at any appeal little weight could be attached to the draft Core Strategy.  However, in his view it would be difficult to defend a refusal at appeal.

·         Concerns about access and traffic could be addressed.

The Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards stated that officer advice remained that no weight could be given to the Whitbourne Neighbourhood Plan at this stage.  Highways concerns could be addressed.  The development was sustainable.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had nothing to add to his opening remarks.

It was suggested that Chapters 7, 8 and 11 of the NPPF provided grounds for refusal, along with highways concerns, sustainability and the provisions in the Neighbourhood Plan.

A motion that the application be refused was lost after the Chairman exercised his casting vote.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary:

INFORMATIVES:

(The meeting adjourned between 2.45 and 2.55pm)