For:      CNG Developments Ltd per Mr L F Hulse, 19 Friars Gardens, Ludlow, Shropshire, SY8 1RX.

To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse it, contrary to policy and officer recommendations.

Ward: Leominster North

The Northern Team leader said that the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse planning permission contrary to recommendation.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the proposals for the site would constitute overdevelopment and the Head of Planning Services had decided to refer the matter to the Planning Committee for consideration.  He presented the following updates:-

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION

There has been ongoing correspondence with Mr Hewitt of 64 Osborne Place, he raises a number of questions about contact with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the adequacy of condition 16 to deal with surface water drainage and water logging of the site and adjacent public footpath.

It is also understood that he has made a formal complaint to the Council in this regard.

Reference has also been made to some residents locally being advised that they could not get insurance due to their location within the flood plain.

He also asked upon what basis could it be claimed that ‘ the fact remains that the site was not flooded as a result of recent heavy rainfall’ in para 6.4 of the original report to the northern area planning sub committee and also in the current report.

OFFICER COMMENTS

To respond to last comment first, the comment was made on the basis that we had not been informed by objectors that the site had flooded. It was agreed that in order that there was no misunderstanding that sentence would be amended to read ‘there is no evidence that the site flooded as a result of the recent heavy rainfall’. Unfortunately the report was not so amended and I apologise for that oversight.

Officers have spoken to the Environment Agency on a number of occasions and they are aware of the objections received. There comments appear in the body of the report and it will be noted that they recommend a condition requiring floor levels to be 600mm above the 1% floodplain plus climate change (20%) flood level of 71.59 AOD, this is condition 7 of your report.

Natural England’s response in the main body of the report.

The policy of Insurance Companies to insure or otherwise is not a matter for the LPA.

If the application is permitted condition 16 requires details of the drainage to be submitted to and approve din writing by the LPA before development commences. This is not an unusual requirement and details will be checked with the necessary experts in this field before accepted as suitable.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Thwaites of Leominster Town Council and Mr Hewitt an objector, spoke against the application.

Councillor Brig P Jones, a Local Ward Member, shared the concerns of the objectors about the potential flooding issues, notwithstanding the views of the Environment Agency that the site had a 1 in 1000-year probability of flooding.  He was also concerned at the impact of the proposal on a valuable area of open space and wildlife and that there would be an overall adverse effect on the environment and setting.  He also had reservations about the safety of pedestrians on a well-used thoroughfare because vehicular access would be over a public footpath with no provision for a separate footpath in the access road.

The Committee discussed the merits of the application and shared some of the concerns which had been raised by the objectors.  The Northern Team Leader explained that the concerns could be met by appropriate conditions and informatives and that the application was in accordance with the Council’s planning policies.  A proposal that a site inspection should be held was not supported but it was felt that there was merit in deferring consideration of the application for further information about the proposed method of vehicular access to the site and its likely impact on the public footpath.

RESOLVED

That consideration of the application be deferred for further information about the vehicular access proposals.