Application for up to 10 new residential properties, vehicle turning, manoeuvring and landscaping.

The application was the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  The Committee agreed that if there had not been an appeal it would have been minded to refuse the application.

(Application for up to 10 new residential properties, vehicle turning, manoeuvring and landscaping.)

The Senior 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 clarified that it had been decided on 12 June that an appeal against non-determination was valid and would be heard by written representations.  The Committee could not determine the application but was being asked to express a view that would inform the Council’s approach at that appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Banner, of Lea Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        An appeal against the Committee’s refusal of an application for 14 dwellings had been dismissed by the Inspector on the basis of a lack of a unilateral undertaking or Section 106 agreement.  The current proposal for 10 homes required no S106 agreement.

·        There were no letters in support of the application.

·        Lea had already exceeded by far the minimum number of homes required to be built under the Core Strategy.

·        The site was on the fringe of the settlement and on the opposite side of the A40 to the primary school.  He considered it to be the most dangerous site in his ward.

·        It had been suggested that the applicant had not sent out the required certificate B notifications to adjoining landowners.  He questioned whether the application was therefore invalid.

·        Welsh Water had indicated that the site could not be brought into use before 31 March 2020.  There was therefore no urgency to consider the application.

·        Paragraph 6.14 of the report referred to the Council’s duty of care to assess the highway safety impact.  He had himself been afraid when alongside the road during a site visit.  It was on the opposite side of the road from the Primary School and he was concerned at the risk of a child running home unaccompanied crossing the road.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application points were made that the proposal represented over-development of Lea, that an appeal in 2013 for a single dwelling had been dismissed because of the effect the development would have on the character and appearance of the locality, and that there was a potential conflict with policy RA2 in that the proposal was not driven by housing need.

However, the principal concern related to highway safety.  It was noted that paragraph 6.13 of the report stated that in considering the earlier appeal the Inspector had concluded that the proposed development would not create unacceptable risk of harm to highway safety on the A40.

Members disputed the Inspector’s opinion and commented that since that decision a substantial number of homes had been approved in the area.  It was questioned what weight could therefore be given to the Inspector’s conclusion relating to highway safety.  A Member expressed the view that it would be irresponsible not to refuse the application.

The Senior Planning Officer commented that the appeal for 14 dwellings in 2015 had been dismissed solely on the ground that there had been no S106 agreement.  The Inspector had found in favour of the applicant in relation to all the other grounds advanced for refusal by the Council at appeal including highway safety.  He referred to two recent appeals in one of which, at Gorsley, the Inspector had found in the Council’s favour that the development was unsustainable even given the absence of a five year housing land supply, and another in which, at Lea, the Inspector had found in the Council’s favour that the development would have an adverse impact on the setting of Lea.

The legal adviser reminded the Committee that it needed to have evidence to support any reasons for refusal that it wished to advance and that the council was at the risk of costs if had not got adequate evidence to support any such reasons.

The Acting Development Manager re-emphasised that the appeal for 14 dwellings in 2015 had been dismissed on what amounted to a technicality.  The Inspector had found in favour of the applicant in relation to all the other grounds advanced for refusal by the Council at appeal including highway safety and the setting of Castle End.  He was concerned as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a view that the application should be refused.  He also advised Members as to the risk of exposure to costs on the basis that the Council would not be able to substantiate its position in defending the appeal.

The local ward member emphasised the cumulative effect of development that had both taken place and had been approved.

The legal adviser advised that the Committee needed to consider the matter in the light of the absence of a five year housing land supply.  If the application was sustainable then there had to be significant and demonstrable harm before it could refuse the application.

The Area Engineer Development Control commented that using the recorded speeds associated with the road the location of a crossing could be achieved providing safe pedestrian access to the school. Concerns about the impact of approved background housing growth on the A40 had been considered but the assessment at the time of the appeal had not taken account of the granting of permission for the strategic housing site at Hildersley on which no decision on planning permission had been made at that time.

RESOLVED:  That in the event that there had been no appeal against non-determination the Committee would have been minded to refuse planning permission on account of the impact on the safety of the highway network from the proposed scheme and the background growth from other schemes in the locality.