Proposed site for up to 46 dwellings, new access from Upper Court Road, with open space, parking and associated infrastructure.

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

(Proposed site for up to 46 dwellings, new access from upper court road, with open space, parking and associated infrastructure.) 

(Councillor Chave declared a disclosable pecuniary interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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.  He reported that the update included an objection to the application from English Heritage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Whitehead, of Bosbury and Coddington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Hosking, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Simpson, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The Chairman reported that neither Councillor CNH Attwood, nor Councillor AW Johnson were able to attend the meeting.  He had been asked to read a statement on their behalf, in accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution providing for local ward members to speak on applications.

The principal points in the statement were:

The objections from a clear majority of residents fell into 2 main categories:

1.         Scale -Bosbury is a linear village of 100 houses in a conservation area. Remaining homes are scattered in outlying areas.  46 additional houses represents a 46% increase which can only be described as excessive. The village has one oversubscribed school and a pub. No shop, post office or other community asset except a Village Hall.

Almost all residents are in favour of growth and have no in principle objection to the proposed site. The scale of this proposal however would have a dramatic effect on the village and could certainly not be described as sustainable by any meaningful definition.  There are numerous small sites suitable for development within the village which, collectively, could satisfy growth requirements in a much more absorbable way.

2.         Flooding - Despite claims by the Environment Agency and Severn Trent to the contrary, flooding is a serious problem in this low lying village.   The proposed site slopes continuously down to the access lane. That lane slopes down from the main road to its lowest point immediately adjacent to the school and then rises beyond that point.  The attenuation pond would be sited further along the lane, on higher ground.  The school playground already floods from run off from the proposed site. Additional run off from this development is certain hence the attenuation pond. The pond is to be sited on higher ground yet the Environment Agency do not consider it to be a problem.

Both scale and flood control could be accommodated by a reduced number of houses all sited on the higher side of the field with the lower half reserved for a proper sized pond for flood attenuation.  This is where the water currently collects and will increasingly collect without effective attenuation should this application be approved.

The Committee was requested to reject the proposal and ask the applicant to modify the proposal as suggested.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Bosbury was an iconic Herefordshire village, part of what made the County attractive for tourism.  The Church of the Holy Trinity was a grade 1 listed building.  The village contained a number of other listed buildings.  The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had commented in the report that the development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to policy HBA6.  English Heritage had also now submitted an objection.  It was suggested that policy HBA 4 was also a ground for refusal and that relevant paragraphs of the NPPF notably paragraphs 60, 61, and 131 were also grounds for refusal, outweighing the absence of a five year housing land supply.

·         The proposed increase in the size of the village of 46% was excessive.  The draft core strategy identified that 14% growth over the period 2011-2031 would be proportionate.  A smaller development might have been supported.

·         It was to be regretted that although the Parish Council had submitted a Neighbourhood Plan the Committee was being advised that no weight could be given to it.

·         The access road was of concern as was flooding.

·         There would be a significant, detrimental effect on the character of the area.

The Chairman closed the debate on behalf of the local ward members.  He reiterated their request that the Committee reject the proposal and that the applicants modify their proposal.  (The Chairman also indicated that, having fulfilled the local ward member role, he would not vote on the application.)

The Development Manager cautioned that he had concerns about pursuing reasons for refusal on the technical grounds of access and flooding.  However, policies relating to the development’s impact on the character and setting of the village and its relationship with the conservation area and listed buildings would represent defendable grounds for refusal. 

The Planning Lawyer, having regard to relevant policies, supported the view that the effects on the character and setting of the village with special regard to the setting of listed buildings had sufficient evidence as grounds for refusal.

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: policies relating to the development’s impact on the character and setting of the village and its relationship with the conservation area and listed buildings including  HBA4 – setting of listed buildings, HBA6 – new development within conservation areas, and taking account of relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework notably 60, 61, and 131.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it was not possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified approval has not, in this instance, been possible.