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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104