Proposed site for up to 80 dwellings, garages, parking, open space and indicative road layout.

Consideration of the application was deferred pending a site visit.

(Proposed site for up to 80 dwellings, garages, parking, open space and indicative road layout.).

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 added that although no formal written response had been received from the Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) they had confirmed, at a meeting on 31 July 2017, that Nunwell Surgery was at capacity.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs C Hughes, a local resident, speaking on behalf of residents of Ashdown Way spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was a windfall development.  No local authority plan had designated the site for housing.

·        Core Strategy Policy BY1 stated that Bromyard would accommodate a minimum of 500 new homes together with around 5 hectares of new employment land during the plan period.  Bromyard and Winslow Town Council had decided not to pursue a Neighbourhood Development Plan having been unable to identify employment land.  It was now seeking to participate in the production of the Bromyard Area Development Plan.

·        The Parish Council’s preference and that of the local population was for development to take place at the strategic housing location Hardwick Bank as provided for in Core Strategy policy BY2.  

·        He questioned whether the proposal was premature and contrary to the provision of policy SS5 requiring the provision of employment land.

·        He highlighted and supported the concerns expressed by Nunwell Surgery that the current capacity was insufficient to meet the additional need that the development would generate.

·        St Peters Bromyard Primary School was at or over capacity.

·        He questioned whether the development was necessary and whether it would jeopardise infrastructure and the delivery of the strategic housing site at Hardwick Bank.

·        In relation to the impact on the landscape and conformity with policy LD1, whilst the planning officer had commented that the planning application was for outline permission applications for planning permission on adjacent sites had been refused and dismissed on appeal on landscape grounds.  Recent legal judgements meant that the authority could give weight to this aspect notwithstanding the absence of a five year housing land supply.  Development proposals should conserve and enhance the landscape.

·        In summary he asked the Committee to consider whether the proposal jeopardised the development of the Hardwick Bank site because of the pressure on infrastructure, whether it was contrary to policy SS5 given the absence of employment land in the Parish and contrary to policy LD1 because of its adverse impact on the landscape.  

·        If the application were to be approved he requested that the Town Council and local community be involved in consideration of the reserved matters.

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

·        In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer showed a plan indicating the proposed housing development in the Town.  He confirmed that paragraph 4 of the Heads of Terms document was intended to refer to a contribution per dwelling.

·        Current plans provided for sustainable development in Bromyard.  Consideration should be given to the potentially adverse effect of unplanned development. 

·        The development was contrary to the wishes of the Town Council and the local community.  There were other sites identified for development for which there was local support.

·        Regard needed to be had to the concerns about whether there was sufficient infrastructure provision to support the proposed development.

·        The absence of employment land was a concern.

·        Particular consideration needed to be given to the impact on the landscape of a development on the approach to the Town.  There appeared to be a lack of information about the provision of green infrastructure as part of the development.  A member added that if the development were to be approved it would be important to ensure that any mitigation provided was sufficient.  If this was carried out well it might even soften the edge of the approach to the Town.

·        It was asked whether there was scope for sustainable transport measures. However, in view of the concerns about the impact on the landscape a majority of members supported a proposal that a site inspection be held.

The legal adviser commented on the effect of the “Richborough case” on the application of the NPPF and the weight the Committee could give to core strategy policies.  If the Committee was minded to refuse the application it would have to be satisfied that the proposal would cause significant and demonstrable harm.

The Lead Development Manager commented in response to a question that the Rural Areas Development Plan was to be progressed first ahead of the Bromyard Area Development Plan.  No decision had yet been taken as to what areas, including the application site, would be included within the Rural Areas Development Plan.  A site visit would allow members to consider the concerns that had been expressed about the proposal’s landscape impact.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.17 am and 11.28 am.)