Proposed 49 dwellings, including affordable dwellings, associated parking and landscaping.

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

(Proposed 49 dwellings including affordable dwellings, associated parking and landscaping.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

The update issued to the Committee stated that Natural England had withdrawn its objection and accepted the Council’s Habitats Screening report.  It was also proposed to add a condition relating to slab levels and investigation (contamination).

He noted that if the application was recommended for approval the Secretary of State would have to decide whether or not he wished to call in the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr T Mitcheson, of Bodenham Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr Crane, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Austin-Fell, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor BA Baker, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        Bodenham Parish Council accepted that Bodenham and Bodenham Moor should accommodate their share of new housing.  It was considered that this would be good for the village and support local services.  Local people should be able to shape their communities.  The emerging Neighbourhood Plan identified suitable sites for the housing required for Bodenham Parish under the Core Strategy.  Existing commitments and expected windfall sites amounted to 64 new dwellings in the Bodenham Moor area. This already exceeded the number identified for Bodenham Moor before 2031.

·        There was a large livestock operation within 400 metres of the application site with a large slurry lagoon adjacent to the road.  The owner had stated his intention to increase the size of the operation.  A Planning Inspector had refused an application for a dwelling near to the farm because of serious infestation by flies and offensive smells.  The Environmental Health Officer had supported refusal of that application.  The Inspector had concluded that there was an unacceptable risk to the living conditions of residents of the proposed development.  The proposal to install a slurry separator was not a solution.  In fact there was evidence that this might increase the environmental impact.   The operation would have an adverse effect on the health and amenity of residents of the new development if it were to proceed.

·        The application was speculative.  It would increase the size of Bodenham Moor by over 40%.  This was not sustainable.  It represented overdevelopment contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan.

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

·        Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that planning should be “genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings.”

·        The Parish Council had expressed its case for opposing the scheme effectively.   It was acting responsibly and had indicated that it was willing to accept housing where it considered it to be suitable.

·        Concerns were expressed about the effectiveness of the proposed drainage solution and that there would be a flooding risk.

·        The development represented overdevelopment and would change the character of Bodenham Moor.  It was not proportionate and conflicted with policy RA2.

·        The proximity of the development to an intensive livestock operation was of concern.

·        It was questioned whether the proposed housing mix was appropriate.

·        The applicant’s suggestion that an area of the site including an attenuation pond could provide informal open space was questioned.

·        There was an absence of infrastructure including transport links.

·        The development offered 17 affordable homes and should be supported. An observation was made in response to this point that development already approved at England’s Gate would provide affordable housing.

·        The Development Manager commented that there were no objections to the proposal from any of the external or internal consultees. There were other houses between the development site and the livestock unit.  No weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan which had not reached Regulation 14 Stage.   The development, being over 10 houses would provide affordable housing.  Windfall development would not guarantee affordable housing.

·        A Member asserted that case law and ministerial statements indicated that weight could be given to emerging neighbourhood plans. 

·        The responses from the consultees were not strongly supportive of the application.

·        In the absence of a nutrient management action plan, comment in the report in relation to the River Lugg SAC could not be considered robust.

·        Windfall developments could deliver affordable housing.

·        A Member commented that when Council had been invited to adopt the Core Strategy he had cautioned that the adoption might not provide the assistance to the Planning Committee that many thought it would.

·        Producing a Neighbourhood Plan required considerable effort by the local community.  It was questioned whether the Council was processing Neighbourhood Plans submitted to it as swiftly as it could.  The Development Manager assured the Committee that there was no delay on the Council’s part in processing the plans.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the development would have an adverse impact, was unsustainable and undermined the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

A number of grounds were advanced for refusing the application.

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 was contrary to policies RA2, SS6, LD1 and SD1 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 17 and 58.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.15 am and 11.25 am.)