The Chairman reported that Councillor MAF Hubbard had resigned from the Committee with immediate effect.  Councillor AJW Powers had replaced Councillor Hubbard on the Committee for the meeting.

On behalf of the Committee, Councillor Cutter thanked Councillor Hubbard for his contribution to the Committee and wished him success with his business.

Apologies were received from Councillors AJM Blackshaw, AN Bridges, BA Durkin, JG Lester, RL Mayo and DB Wilcox.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JF Knipe attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor AN Bridges and Councillor NP Nenadich substituted for Councillor DB Wilcox.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Agenda item 8 – P150067/O Land Adjacent to Vine Tree Close, Withington

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the landowner.

There were no announcements.

Proposed development of 12 nos. dwellings, consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market.  Works to include new road and landscaping.  Amended plans.

The Committee noted the report.

(Proposed development of 12 nos. dwelllings, consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market.  Works to include new road and landscaping.)  

The Committee had approved this planning application on 21 January 2015.  The Development Manager reported that although the S106 contributions quoted in that report had been correct, they had differed from the draft heads of terms appended to that report which had been for a previous application.

The correct draft heads of terms were appended to the report before the Committee.

The Development Manager also reported that the local ward member was content with the situation and that as requested by the Committee he and the Chairman had been consulted on and had agreed with the proposed conditions to be attached to the planning permission.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

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.

Proposed erection of 40 dwellings including 14 affordable houses and change of use of land to form community open space.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of 40 dwellings including 14 affordable houses and change of use of land to form community open space.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  An application for 60 dwellings on the site had been refused by the Committee on 27 August and was the subject of an appeal.  The revised application before the Committee was for 40 dwellings to be constructed on the eastern parcel of the application site (where 49 were previously proposed) with the whole of the western parcel transferred to the Parish Council and protected for community use as public open space.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Thomas, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr B Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DW Greenow, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         At a meeting of the Parish Council residents present had been asked for their views and had narrowly voted in support of the application.  The Parish Council had noted that those supporting the application appeared to do so reluctantly acknowledging that there would have to be some development in the villages.   The Parish Council had voted by a majority to support the application.

·         A difficult balance had to be struck.  The reasons for refusing the previous application still applied: adverse effect on the character and setting of the village. and visibility from the AONB.  However, the new proposal was for a smaller development with the offer of a parcel of land to the Parish Council.

·         Other applications for development in the locality had been lodged, one for over 100 houses. The previous application was the subject of an appeal.  It was understood that the developer would proceed on the basis of the application before the Committee rather than the original application if planning permission was granted.

·         At least one property neighbouring the development relied on a private water supply.  If permission were granted the developer should be requested as part of the development works to explore linking any such properties to the mains water supply.

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

·         The development would have an adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings and the landscape.  It was important that if it proceeded particular consideration was given to landscaping at the reserved matters stage.

·         It was requested that the developer should be asked to work with neighbours in relation to the water supply.

·         Further work should be done at the reserved matters stage on pedestrian access.  In response to this point the Principal Planning Officer clarified the position regarding pedestrian access and officers’ conclusion  that there was no highway safety issue.

·         The development offered the opportunity to preserve a green space in the village.

·         The development should be built to a good and sustainable standard.

·         The Parish Council had indicated support for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

Proposed erection of up to 31 dwellings.  Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.  Demolition of No 5 Vine Tree Close.

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

(Proposed erection of up to 31 dwellings.  Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.  Demolition of no. 5 Vine Tree Close.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that an application for 45 dwellings had been refused by the Committee on 29 October 2014 and was currently the subject of an appeal.  The application was a resubmission proposing up to 31 dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Bainbridge, Chairman of Withington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Warner, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DW Greenow, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The objections to the original proposal remained valid. The site was at the highest point of the village and highly visible.  The demolition of a house to provide an access was unwelcome.  All the works traffic would have to travel between the two dwellings either side of the proposed access which in addition to having an adverse effect on those two properties would also adversely affect other neighbours.

·         There was concern about flooding from the site affecting homes below the site.

·         There were alternative sites for development.

·         There had been 96 letters of objection and in canvassing opinion on a visit to the area he had found no support for the development.

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

·         The grounds on which the Committee had previously refused the application remained valid.

·         The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had categorised the site as having significant constraints.

·         The character and ambience of Vine Tree Close would be adversely affected by the development.

The Development Manager commented that at the current appeal the Council was not defending the lack of a proven surface water drainage proposal, one of the Committee’s original grounds for refusal.  He requested that this should be withdrawn as a ground for refusing the resubmitted application.  No weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan.  The Housing Development Officer supported the application.  There was a need for affordable housing in the village which the scheme would provide.  Weight should be given to the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the Scheme because of its adverse impact.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication: the adverse impact on neighbouring residents of the proposed access, and saved polices of the UDP: LA2 – landscape character and areas least resilient to change, and LA 3 – setting of settlements.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.