Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application.

(Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.)

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 if the Committee was minded to approve the application he proposed that an informative should be added stating that the proposed layout of the scheme was not acceptable and it must be ensured that the amenity of properties adjoining the site was protected.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pendleton, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K Wheeler, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Goldsworthy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The access to the site was situated at a dangerous corner.  There had been a number of accidents and near misses in that location.  There would also be traffic management issues within the site itself.

·        He questioned the figures contained in the Transport Statement accompanying the application regarding the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate.  He considered the figure to be too low.  The surrounding area already suffered from traffic problems.

·        There were many houses for sale in Leominster.  He doubted whether there was a demand for more housing to be built.

·        The site was surrounded by residential development with no public open space.  The local community had expressed a wish for the land to be used to create a green open space, with a wildlife garden and other elements including redevelopment of a former pond.

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

·        There were visibility problems with the access.  In part these were caused by parked cars.

·        The development should be considered as infill development.

·        Road travel in the area was problematic.  The roads were narrow.  Two Doctors surgeries in the area added to the traffic difficulties.

·        Air pollution in the Bargates area was acknowledged as being of concern. Traffic measures agreed almost 3 years ago, including replacement of the traffic lights with “smart” versions, had not been implemented.  Any proposal that would increase traffic in that area should be rejected.

·        The assessment of the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate appeared to be too low.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on existing residents of the area.

·        An application in 2003 for a smaller development on the site had been refused. 

·        The site was outside the settlement boundary.  In opposition to this point it was observed that the Authority had already granted planning permission for a number of sites outside settlement boundaries having regard to national government policies as expressed through the NPPF.

·        There was support for the land to remain as open space.  It was noted in response, however, that the land was privately owned.

·        The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34