Site for proposed erection of nine dwellings. Construction of new vehicular access, turning area and private roads. Layout and construction of associated works.

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

(Site for proposed erection of nine dwellings. Construction of new vehicular access, turning area and private roads. Layout and construction of associated works.)

(Councillor James had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Cronshaw a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr S Barton, spoke in support on behalf of the applicant’s agent.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The application site was within the Wye Valley AONB.  As such it had to be considered under paragraph 172 of the NPPF and required great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape.  The proposal was contrary to paragraph 172 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies SS6 and LD1 and should be refused.

·        The Landscape Officer had commented that the proposal did not comply with LD1, referencing the engineering works to facilitate the access in conjunction with the loss of hedgerow.

·        There were landscaping schemes in mitigation.  The residual harm would have to be weighed against the scheme’s benefits.

·        Tranquillity and darkness were other aspects of an AONB that should be considered.  Consideration should be given to controlling any proposed use of passive infrared sensor lighting that would urbanise the area.

·        Glewstone was classified as an RA2 settlement despite completely lacking amenities (no bus service, no pub, no village hall, no church, no school).  She questioned if the proposal was compliant with SS7 which stated development should be in sustainable locations seeking to reduce the need to travel by car.  It appeared in conflict with RA2 (3) and SS4 which reflected this theme.  There was no public transport.  It was not safe to walk along the narrow lanes. It was not possible to cycle on the A40.  There was no alternative to travel by car to reach any services.  Much of Glewstone also lacked reasonable broadband access, a further issue of sustainability.

·        Objectors were concerned about the safety of schoolchildren waiting for the school bus at the crossroads.  A refuge had been offered in mitigation in response to views of the Area Engineer.  The local view was that this was not sufficient.

·        The site was in the AONB on rising ground and would have a landscape impact.  That had to be weighed against the benefits.  The mitigation would not offset the harm. 

·        If the Committee was minded to approve the application she requested that consideration should be given to the amenity and light of the neighbouring Herriot’s cottage at the reserved matters stage along with external lighting and sustainable design.

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

·        One view was that the site was in a hollow and the landscape impact on the AONB could be mitigated. A contrary view was that the proposal was intrusive in the AONB landscape.  It was on a steep slope and would require considerable engineering works.

·        Lighting and materials should be carefully considered at the reserved matters stage.

·        Natural England had no objection.

·        In relation to reserved matters, it was questioned how the ongoing management costs of the proposed community orchard would be met. Bat tiles should be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·        Concern was expressed about the location’s sustainability given the absence of local amenities. In addition, an Inspector had recently dismissed an appeal elsewhere on the grounds of sustainability given its lack of fast broadband.

·        Highway safety was a concern noting the proposed provision of a pedestrian refuge. The PPO commented that a kerbed footway raised above the road level was proposed creating a platform within the land in highway control and the adjoining property wall.

·        It was questioned whether the size of houses proposed met the area’s needs.

·        The site was not an RA2 settlement and was one of several examples that needed to be addressed in the scheduled review of the Core Strategy.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Core Strategy identified the area as sustainable and suitable for proportionate growth under RA2.  There was no Neighbourhood Development Plan. 

He commented that the scope of the scheduled review of the Core Strategy had yet to be determined.  It was expected that the review would take some years.

He clarified that at the time when an earlier appeal against refusal of permission had been dismissed the relevant policy had defined the site as being in the open countryside.

The application had some benefits such as the pedestrian refuge.  The housing mix comprised single and two storey dwellings.  The proposal could be viewed as organic growth.  It was in keeping with the character of the area.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that the key issue was the landscape impact on a site in the AONB and in her view this attracted greater weight than any benefits.

A motion that the application be approved was lost.

Councillor Lloyd Hayes proposed and Councillor Guthrie seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy LD1, Paragraphs 15 and 172 of the NPPF and the Wye Valley AONB Area Management Plan.  The motion was carried with 7 votes in favour, 4 against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policy LD1, Paragraphs 15 and 172 of the NPPF and the Wye Valley AONB Area Management Plan and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.