Site for a mixed use development including the erection of up to 625 new homes (including affordable housing), up to 2.9 hectares of b1 employment land, a canal corridor, public open space (including a linear park), access, drainage and ground modelling works and other associated works.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to give the applicant time to amend the application to include a second access point through the viaduct.

(Site for a mixed use development including the erection of up to 625 new homes (including affordable housing), up to 2.9 hectares of B1 employment land, a canal corridor, public open space (including a linear park), access, drainage and ground modelling works and other associated works.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council and Mr D Williams of Wellington Heath Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr R Gates, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr N Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member and adjoining ward members were invited to speak.

Adjoining ward member Councillor I’Anson made the following principal comments. The scheme had benefits.  The development had been carefully planned.  It would provide much needed affordable housing.  There was a good housing mix meeting local need.  The provision of employment land also contributed to the sustainability of the development.  The site was close to the railway station.  The reinstatement of a section of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal would provide an attractive feature and the tow path would provide a safe walking and cycling route towards the Town’s allotments on the Bromyard Road. It might also offer opportunities for partnerships with local colleges and craft apprenticeships.  There were good walking and cycling links to the Primary School, Town Centre and recreational facilities.  The developer contribution to development of the primary school and sports facilities and expansion of health care facilities was welcome.  The extension of the linear riverside park was also welcome.

On the other hand there were some concerns.  The site was in a category 1 flood zone.  However, there was concern that flood risk was increasing.  A water mill had previously been adjacent to the site.  However, access was the principal issue.  The proposed access was too far from the town centre so there would be increased car journeys.  Pedestrian use of the Bromyard road was currently an issue.

Adjoining ward member Councillor Howells read out a detailed submission.  A copy is included within the schedule of updates appended to these minutes.  In summary, he commented that there was not opposition in principle to the development.  However, the proposal that there should be a single access of the B4214 Bromyard Road was not acceptable.  A second access should be provided from the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout.

Councillor Harvey, the local ward member, then spoke on the application.  She made the following principal comments.  The access to the site was the principal issue. The Deer Park estate to the south of the Town had been developed with a single access and this had caused considerable difficulties within the community. A second access at the other end of the estate had eventually been provided.  The Council’s highways design guide stated that a single access was not suitable for developments larger than 300 homes.  The application had many good aspects.  However, the site must be properly connected to Ledbury and form part of the Town.  The single access would not achieve this aim.  It would require people to drive a mile out of Town to access the development and then once within it drive back towards the Town to reach their properties.  The new proposed path to the canal passed through the viaduct at the point where access to the site had long been proposed.  It had always been clear that to be acceptable to the local community the primary access to the site must be off the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout.  Policy LB2 in the draft core strategy had initially referred to the provision for 2 accesses into the site but at the public examination the Planning Inspector recommended the policy should be less prescriptive by referring to the provision of satisfactory vehicular access arrangements, with the descriptive detail to be left to the planning application.  The policy was amended accordingly and the core strategy adopted by council.  The policy stated that vehicular access should be satisfactory. The report in the agenda papers indicated that this did not mean adequate.  The impact on highway safety was judged not to be severe.  The consequences of the development would be felt by the community in perpetuity. However, she suggested that rather than refusing the application, subject to an additional satisfactory access being provided from the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout serving some two thirds of the development, officers should be authorised to grant outline planning permission following consultation and agreement with the local ward councillors that the access was satisfactory, along with the conditions and S106 agreement, with the matter being returned to the Committee for consideration if agreement could not be reached.

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

·        The development appeared to be acceptable to the community except for the proposed single access.  When the site had first been proposed it had been envisaged that there would be access from the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout. The provision of two accesses was the correct solution for the future of Ledbury.  It was feasible to provide that second access and the developer should meet that cost rather than it eventually falling to the taxpayer to do so at some future date.

·        The Transportation Manager commented that the proposal before the Committee was for an access off the Bromyard Road.  Officers had considered the access in detail.  Policy LB2 required an appropriate and satisfactory access to the site.  He quoted paragraph 108 of the NPPF.  As highway authority the Council had sought to ensure that the analysis by the applicants had been thorough and provided assurance that the proposals offered satisfactory mitigation.  As set out in the consultation response and in the schedule of updates the highway authority considered that a satisfactory access could be provided in compliance with policy LB2 and the NPPF.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee had to determine the application before it.  The Committee could approve it, refuse it, or defer it.  He was concerned that in the event of a deferral the applicant may seek to lodge an appeal against non-determination.  The technical highway assessment was in favour of the application and this would make it difficult to defend the appeal.

·        The proposal was complimented for the regard it had to environmental considerations in relation to travel.

·        In response to questions officers commented as follows:

·        The PPO confirmed that the pathway leading from the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout under the viaduct was private land with no current public access rights.

·        In relation to flood risk and the ability of homeowners to obtain insurance the PPO commented that on the masterplan the areas of the site considered most at risk from flooding were to the west of the site and were allocated for the canal route, open space and landscaping.  As stated at paragraph 6.159 of the report the majority of the site, where the housing and employment land was located was classified as low risk flood zone 1 by the Environment Agency.  Housing development was acceptable on such land.

·        It was suggested there were differences in the traffic modelling by the Council, developer and a consultant appointed by Ledbury Town Council.   The PPO commented that as set out in the schedule of updates there was a consensus that the modelling used was appropriate.

·        In terms of footway and cycleway links the developer had responded to responses received in the consultation process and there had been an emphasis on ensuring connectivity and sustainability.  An upgrade in the section of path linking to the town trail had been secured as an additional benefit from the developer.

·        A concern was expressed about the safety risk of having only a single access.  In response it was noted the Bromyard Road trading estate had five accesses. The requirements of the emergency services formed part of the Transportation Manager’s considerations.  An emergency access was proposed.  The Emergency Planning Officer had no role in this regard.

·        It was suggested that a comparatively low density of development was proposed raising the possibility of further development of the site.  The PPO commented that Policy LB1 and LB2 provided for a development of 625 dwellings and this limit on development was also governed by a recommended condition.

·        In response to questions about the proposals to restore the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal the PPO commented that the detail would form part of any reserved matters application submitted by the Canal Trust. Development of the canal outside the application area was not relevant to the application.  The historic route could not be replicated but the overriding objective of developing a complete Hereford to Gloucester canal could be achieved to the Trust’s satisfaction.  The proposal was consistent with that objective and complied with policy LB2.

A motion that the application be refused on the basis that the application was not in the best interests of Ledbury and the access was therefore not satisfactory was withdrawn.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application had been under consideration for a long time and had involved substantial negotiations with the developers over many aspects including the access.  It had been concluded that a satisfactory access proposal had finally been arrived at.  It was to be noted that the consultant employed by Ledbury Town Council also considered the proposed access to be acceptable.  This made it difficult to support a case for refusing the application.

The site was the strategic site for housing development in Ledbury within the Core Strategy and would make a significant contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply.  A refusal would encourage applications for development in Ledbury and elsewhere in the County given the absence of such a housing land supply. 

There was a risk of an appeal against any refusal and costs being awarded against the Council.

The local ward member and adjoining ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Howells commented that the community was strongly opposed to the proposal.  Ledbury Town Council would be determined to contest any approval of the application. 

Councillor Harvey commented that the route for the canal that had been identified as passing under the viaduct could easily be relocated.  The Inspector in the recent Dymock Road Public inquiry had commented that there were blocks of land in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment around Ledbury that were capable of delivering at least 960 dwellings.  It was understood the application site was not allocated for development under the core strategy but rather was identified as being a possible site.  The NDP had been criticised for not stating the community’s views on access to the proposed site.  However, the Plan had been prepared in accordance with advice from officers to ensure conformity with the Core Strategy.  The site was on a flood plain where the Core Strategy and NPPF said development should be avoided where possible and the SHLAA housing assessment indicated that this development could indeed be avoided.  Development had been permitted on appeal beyond the bypass to the south of the town.  Other developers had land options to the south of the town that were capable of delivering at least as many houses as the application site.  They were unplanned and not the way in which Ledbury was proposed to grow.  The community was content to accept the proposal with the second access as originally intended, notwithstanding that the site had some shortcomings.  The developers had known from the outset that the intention had been that there should be two accesses with the primary access off the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout and that was what the community expected and supported. The developers could choose to avoid legal challenge if they wished.

Councillor Millmore proposed and Councillor Seldon seconded a motion that the application be deferred to give the applicant time to amend the application to include a second access point through the viaduct.  The motion was carried unanimously with 15 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred to give the applicant time to amend the application to include a second access point through the viaduct.