Proposed 25 dwellings with garages and car spaces.

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

(Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.)

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.

Further to consideration of application 150052, land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster, the previous agenda item, he reiterated that the Committee had deferred consideration of the application to permit consideration of a single access to the two sites: applications 150052 – land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster and 150053 – land at and west of West Winds, Cholstrey Road, Leominster which were adjoining. Application 150052 had been revised from an application for 10 dwellings to an application for 12 dwellings.  Application 150053 had been revised from an application for 25 dwellings to an application for 23 dwellings. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, speaking on behalf of Leominster Civic Society and local residents, spoke in objection.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·         She noted that the comments she had made in relation to the previous application (150052) were also relevant to application 150053. In summary these were:

·         The report did not consider or address the concerns about air pollution on the Bargates.

·         Local residents were concerned about highway safety and believed that a number of accidents had taken place that had not been recorded.

·         Insufficient weight was being given to the retention of the site as greenfield land forming part of a green corridor on the edge of the Town.

·         Core Strategy (CS) Policy LD3 stated that development proposals should identify and retain existing green infrastructure corridors.

·         The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2011 (SHLAA) stated that the site had significant constraints.

·         The Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) wanted the green corridor to be protected.  The report stated that the NDP was a material consideration.  If the application was refused and an appeal lodged the NDP could well have been adopted and be given weight at the appeal.

·         Consideration should be given to the view of the local community that the attractive entrance to the Town should be protected.

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

·         The proposal was contrary to policy LD3 as had been argued in the case of application 150052.

·         The policy was contrary to policy LO1.  The policy stated that in addition to a single strategic urban extension of 1,500 dwellings, the remaining dwellings to be accommodated during the plan period would be “provided through existing commitments, smaller scale non-strategic sites within the existing built up area; those which come forward through the Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan, or sites judged as having development potential which are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.”  The application site was not in the existing built up area, not in the NDP and the SHLAA considered that the site had significant constraints.  Policy L01 also provided that developments should not exacerbate air pollution levels within the designated air quality management area at Bargates.  The applicants had not demonstrated engagement and consultation with the local community as required by the policy.

·         Paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework referred to neighbourhood planning as a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community. Account should be taken of the views of the Town Council and the NDP.

·         It was asked whether a condition could be imposed to ensure that the developer carried out the required landscaping and funded its future maintenance.  The Development Manager commented that the draft Section 106 agreement provided for a raft of contributions that included provision to enhance the open space within the development.  Discussions would be held with the local ward member and the Town Council on the S106 agreement.

·         A Member suggested that the wording of relevant polices could be interpreted in a way that permitted the development.

·         If the application was approved highway improvements would be required as outlined during discussion of application 150052, the subject of the previous agenda item.

·         Traffic management proposals were welcomed.

·         The Development Manager commented that CS policy L02 did take account of the air pollution issue as it made reference to the provision of the Leominster relief road.

·         The relief road had been awaited for some considerable time.  A small number of landholders held large landholdings required for the relief road.   It was questioned whether they would be inclined to sell their land.

·         Having approved application 150052 it was questioned how the Committee could refuse the application.

The Development Manager commented that further discussion with the Council was needed on the NDP even though it was at Regulation 16 stage because it listed the site earmarked for the strategic urban extension as a green infrastructure area and did not identify sufficient housing sites to meet the identified need within the Core Strategy.  In relation to policy L01 he remarked that the site at Cholstrey Road was adjacent to the built up area.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that the application was contrary to policy L01. A relief road would not be provided in advance of the site being developed if the application were approved. Air pollution issues would therefore remain.  The proposal was contrary to the SHLAA, CS policies LD3 and L01, the NDP and local wishes.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LO1, LD3 and LD1 and the NPPF.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and that 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 application should be refused because it was contrary to policies LO1, LD3 and LD1 and the NPPF.