Proposed site for 14 new residential properties to include 5 no.Affordable properties, vehicle turning and landscaping.

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

(Proposed site for 14 new residential properties to include 5 no.Affordable properties, vehicle turning and landscaping.)

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, Mr P Fountain, Vice-Chairman of Lea Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group and Mr M Lowe, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Kendrick, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         On 11 February 2015 the Committee had refused an application for 38 dwellings on the grounds that this would represent overdevelopment.   Planning permission had already been granted for 48 new dwellings in Lea village which consisted of 218 dwellings.  This represented a 25% increase in the size of the village.

·         He was concerned about highway safety.  People using a proposed footpath alongside the A40 to the proposed pedestrian crossing would be very vulnerable, including Children who would have to use the crossing to get to school.   He was also concerned about the safety of the access off the A40 itself.  Traffic speeds exceeded the 30mph limit.  The visibility splay to the north was insufficient.

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the landscape.

·         The footpath by which residents would have to access the village would not be pleasant to use because of its narrow width and proximity to the A40.

·         The proposed site was the worst possible location in the village for new houses.  It was not a sustainable development.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The development for which permission had already been granted in Lea exceeded the growth target over the period of the Core Strategy.  The development was not sustainable. 

·         The Parish Council and Lea Action Group were opposed to the development.  There had also been 57 letters of objection.

·         There were considerable highway safety concerns presented by the A40.  A driver would have great difficulty seeing pedestrians using the proposed pedestrian crossing unless a hedge including trees could be entirely removed.  There was concern too about backing up of traffic towards a blind bend on the A40.

·         The development would have an adverse impact on Castle End, a grade II* listed dwelling.

·         There were landscaping issues.  The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had commented in the report that the retention of the rural landscape adjacent to Castle End Farm would be fundamentally preferred. 

·         The Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply was the only reason the application had been brought forward.

The Development Manager commented that following the examination in public of the Core Strategy the indicative growth target was likely to increase as it would be based upon growth within Lea Parish not in Lea village.  Growth targets across the County would likewise increase to enable the County to meet its housing targets.  In addition there would be no cap on development.  If an application were acceptable it would proceed.  It was for the Neighbourhood Plan to identify specific development sites within villages and that was why it was important that these plans were progressed to Regulation 16 stage. The proposed development was at the edge of the village and had access to its facilities.  He cautioned against refusal on highway grounds.

The Transportation Manager stated that sight lines met the Manual for Streets 2 standards; the 85 percentile speed measurements were satisfactory; and the accident data that he had access to, which was prior to 2013, showed 2 accidents on the A40 in the locality but no accidents near the development site.

It was acknowledged that officer advice was that there was no objection on highway safety grounds and some Members suggested this should not be advanced as a ground for refusal. However, many Members, several of whom had attended a site inspection, remained concerned about safety and the risk of accidents.

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on a Grade II* listed building (which is a significant heritage asset), highway safety concerns, landscaping concerns, and concerns about sustainability on the basis that the scheme would represent overdevelopment of Lea village.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the development.

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal would have an adverse impact on a Grade II* listed building (which is a significant heritage asset), highway safety concerns, landscaping concerns, concerns regarding sustainability and on the basis that the scheme would represent overdevelopment of Lea village.