Residential development comprising of 29 dwellings with associated access, carparking, landscaping and open space.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a Further Information Report at the request of the Head of Neighbourhood Planning and the Monitoring Officer.

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. He advised the Committee that amended plans had been received that addressed the outstanding design and layout matters and the recommendation was therefore amended accordingly.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Jackson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The Parish Council apologised for not being in attendance to speak at the meeting.

·         There were concerns in respect of sewerage issues in the area.

·         The locality had been described as of great archaeological interest in a 1990 survey.

·         The existing foul water system had still not been adopted by Crest Nicholson despite this commitment being made when  their 2009 planning permission was considered by committee.

·         The site was a greenfield site, the Council should look at availability of brownfield sites and more sustainable sites before granting permission on the application site.

·         The Section 106 agreement did not include a contribution to Holmer school or the Wentworth Park play area which was in need of updating.

The Committee opened the debate by discussing their concerns in respect of the application. They discussed the National Planning Policy Framework which required the authority to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as well as a 5% buffer on top of this. However they were of the view that there were other, more suitable, plots of land throughout the county which could fulfil the demand. The Committee felt that developers should investigate the possibility of developing brownfield sites within the city prior to applying for residential development on rural, greenfield sites. They were also of the opinion that the NPPF guidance should not be viewed as an opportunity for developers to expand already substantial housing developments.

They also voiced their concerns in respect of the previous issues of non-compliance in respect of commitments to adopt the existing drainage network.

The Committee continued to debate the application and expressed their concerns in respect of the expansion of an already large development of 300 houses. They had concerns in respect of the impact the application would have on the neighbouring landscape as well as the lack of infrastructure capacity both above and below ground.  In this regard, they also had concerns regarding increased traffic on Roman Road.

In response to a question in respect of the Landscape Officer’s comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the objection related to the landscape character and not visual impact.

The Committee went on to discuss the key policies in respect of the application. They were of the opinion that the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies H7, CF2, DR4 and LA2 and should therefore be refused.

In response to the issues raised in respect of drainage, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the drainage from the site would discharge to the adopted drainage network via the main development which was also subject to an adoption agreement with Welsh Water thus by-passing the unadopted system. He added that the Roman Road pumping Station had now been adopted and that a new pumping station would also be adopted by Welsh Water. Therefore inadequate drainage would not be an appropriate reason for refusing the application particularly as Welsh Water raised no objection.

The head of Neighbourhood Planning and the Locum lawyer (Planning and Regulatory), representing the Monitoring Officer, both felt that the decision would be difficult to defend if challenged and as a result of this it was advised that a Further Information Report would be required. The determination of the application would therefore be deferred until the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and added that she felt that the application should not be deferred.

RESOLVED:

THAT the determination of the application be deferred in accordance with paragraph 4.8.10 of the Council’s constitution pending a Further Information Report.