Proposed residential development for up to 37 dwellings of which 13 (35%) will be affordable.

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

(Proposed residential development for up to 37 dwellings of which 13 (35%) will be affordable.)

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 noted that in November 2014 the Committee had refused planning permission for the erection of up to 46 dwellings on land to the west of Upper Court Road, Bosbury (application reference P141550/O), and that application was currently the subject of an appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Whitehead of Bosbury and Coddington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Hosking, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Deeley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AW Johnson, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The village was close to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the centre of the village was a Conservation Area.  The proposed development of 37 dwellings would have a considerable impact. There were 350 dwellings within the whole Parish, but only 100 in the core settlement.  The development would therefore represent a 37% increase. The Core Strategy envisaged 14% growth over the period 2011-2031.  The proposed development was disproportionate.   The Committee had previously refused an application for 46 dwellings which was currently the subject of an appeal. 

·         The proposal was contrary to policy.

·         The development would have a detrimental and unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the village. 

·         An application for a single dwelling on a site close to the proposed attenuation pond for the development had recently been refused because of its impact on the visual amenity of the village.

·         Whilst officers had made no objection on highway grounds, the proposed access was of concern.

·         The site was already vulnerable to flooding caused by rain and development would make the situation worse with consequences for land downstream of the development.

·         Improvement to the sewerage works would be required.  The application made no reference to this issue.

·         The applicant had not consulted the Parish Council and had omitted 50% of residents from the distribution of a letter they had sent out including those most affected by the proposal.

·         Weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Plan which the Parish Council had in part funded itself.  The Plan would meet the development need envisaged within the Core Strategy through development within the settlement boundary.   Sensitive and appropriate growth was acceptable.

·         The Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply was being exploited by developers creating pressure to accept developments which in other circumstances would have been refused.

·         There were sound grounds for refusing the proposal.

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

·         An application for a single dwelling close to the application site which had had local support had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183