Outline application for approval of new vehicular access only. Demolition of existing site infrastructure and construction of a mixed use development comprising up to 25 dwellings, 3 offices (b1 use class), a village hall, children day-care centre, together with internal roads, car parking, landscaping and drainage.

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

(Outline application for approval of new vehicular access only. Demolition of existing site infrastructure and construction of a mixed use development comprising up to 25 dwellings, 3 offices (b1 use class), a village hall, children day-care centre, together with internal roads, car parking, landscaping and drainage.)

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 highlighted that the District Valuer, who was independent, had concluded that the site would not be economically viable if the site was required to provide affordable housing and Section 106 contributions.   In other respects, contrary to the additional representations received and reported in the update the only significant change to the application was the repositioning of some dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr  A Watkins, of Eardisley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Killick, a local resident speaking on behalf of Eardisley Village hall Committee and local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr D Jackson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Policy MD1 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) identified the old saw mill site for development. Over the period during which the plan had been developed the local aspiration for provision for employment opportunities had grown.  The mixed use scheme proposed for the site appeared an excellent idea in principle.  However, he had a number of concerns.

·        The site’s size and topography placed constraints upon the development.

·        There was concern about noise levels generated by a business that produced woodchips. 

·        It was important that account was taken of the existing occupants of the site.

·        The information provided on flood risk was a little vague.  Eardisley continued to be at risk of flooding and in heavy rainfall water ran through the site.

·        The emergency flood plans appeared inadequate.

·        There was a question as to the extent to which the site was contaminated, noting the use of arsenic based preservatives used at the former saw mill.

·        There were some concerns about traffic, noting the narrowness of the roads and the large vehicles that used the neighbouring industrial site.  There were issues to be resolved but he considered there was scope to make the required improvements.

·        Any housing needed to be of good quality.

·        In summary, the principal concerns related to pollution, the mix of development, flooding and the capacity of the site.  He considered the site should be developed but the current application contained insufficient information on which to make a decision.

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

·        The proposal appeared to have several benefits.

·        The Parish Council had supported the principle of development and the NDP identified the site for development.  However, the Parish Council was opposed to the current application.  Its view was that the current application did not comply with the NDP because it no longer proposed to include the provision of affordable housing.

·        If housing was constructed it would be important that it was of a standard that would address the concerns about noise levels on the site.  It should also be energy efficient.

·        It was questioned whether the housing officer would still support the application given the absence of affordable housing provision.

·        There was a strong view that there was an identified need for affordable housing as set out in policy MD1 of the NDP.  The proposal was therefore contrary to a key part of the policy.  There was also a concern as to the implications for future development proposals in the County if the Committee readily waived the need for affordable housing as provided for in the Core Strategy and S106 contributions.

·        The Lead Development Manager clarified that the application was for outline planning permission.  It sought approval for the principle of development and the access. That principle in the case of the application before the Committee included agreement that the site would not include affordable housing and S106 contributions. It was for that reason that the report described the application as contrary to policy.  He commented that the detail of the site’s development would be considered at the reserved matters stage and that consideration would take account of advice on housing need having regard to the GL Hearn report on local housing requirements.  He accepted a request that as a matter of course future reports to the committee would contain a link to the relevant Neighbourhood Development Plan.

·        The Principal Planning Officer commented on the allocation of land on the site referred to in policy MD1 stating that the proposal was policy compliant in that respect. He noted that at the consultation stage the Environment Agency had originally objected to the NDP because of lack of clarity over the extent of the flood plain.  Following further work the line of the flood plain had been agreed and the application had accordingly been permitted to proceed with the area of public open space being situated on the flood plain.  There had had to be some compromise if all elements of the scheme were to be delivered.  However, he considered that the application did achieve the substantive elements of MD1.

·        It was clarified that it had been proposed that a school contribution would be provided at Eardisley, not Kington as stated in the report, albeit there were now no contributions.

·        There were concerns about the flooding and surface waste run off, noting that the River Wye was a sensitive special area of conservation.

·        With no contribution to its sustainability there was a risk that the proposed children’s centre would become a redundant building.

·        Any reserved matters application should be brought back to the Committee.

In conclusion, the Lead Development Manager commented that the viability of the site had to be taken into account and the District Valuer supported the applicant’s position.  The council did not have a five year land supply.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated the need for access improvements if the development proceeded and requested that the developers consult fully with the Parish Council and the community on any reserved matters application.

A motion that the application be approved with any reserved matters application to be considered by the Committee was lost.

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the basis that it was contrary to the Core Strategy and the Eardisley NDP citing policies H1, MD1 and SS1.

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 the Core Strategy and the Eardisley NDP citing policies H1, MD1 and SS1.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.24 am and 11.40 am.)