Demolition of existing building and erection of 34 houses and garages together with roads, sewers and associated external works.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Philpotts, representing Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, spoke in objection to 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:

·         Members were thanked for attending the site visit.

·         The density of the scheme was too high.

·         Disappointing that the applicant had not attended the meeting to address the Committee.

·         The site had been designated as B2 employment land and should remain as such.

·         There were 300 homes being built at the Furlongs and therefore the protection of employment land was essential.

·         There were concerns in respect of landscaping, sewerage, highways, site levels and contaminated land.

·         The Section 106 agreement should require a contribution to Holmer School.

·         The site would be more suitable as live/work or starter units for industrial use.

·         The Parish Council’s proposal for community facilities on the site would also be more acceptable.

The debate was opened with a member of the Committee speaking in objection to the application. He noted the comments of the local ward member and was in full agreement with her concerns. The following reasons were given for refusing the application: loss of employment land; site levels; contaminated land and impact on the landscape.  He then went on to draw the Committee’s attention to the key policies of the Unitary Development Plan which supported a refusal of the application, with particular reference made of policies S4, DR1, DR4, DR10 and E5.

Members continued to discuss the application, another member of the Committee agreed that the application should be refused but also had concerns in respect of the design and density of the development. It was also considered that the Parish Council’s views, and the Parish Plan, had not been taken into account.

Another member of the Committee was of the opinion that the application should be approved. She noted that the site was a brownfield site and drew members’ attention to the lack of a five year housing supply, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. She noted that the site was sustainable and had good links to the city centre. Another member agreed that the use of a brownfield site would be beneficial but felt that the proposed site was not acceptable for the reasons raised by the local ward member.

Members continued to discuss the issue of contamination on the site. The view of the Committee was that the contaminated land should not be covered and that any contamination should be removed from the site prior to it being developed. Concern was expressed that there could be some comeback on the Council if the River Lugg became contaminated as a result of the contaminated land being disturbed.

Members discussed the Section 106 agreement and had concerns regarding the lack of contributions to nearby facilities. It was further noted that there was no contribution to Holmer Primary School and that this would be welcomed.

In response to questions raised by members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the density of the proposed development was 34 dwellings per hectare. She also added that the issue of the contaminated land had been investigated fully by officers and stated that in their opinion the proposed conditions would address the concerns raised by members.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised members that there were two ways of processing the contaminated soil; the applicant could strip the site and remove the soil to an authorised disposal site for cleansing or the contamination could be capped. In this case capping was proposed and was considered acceptable as stated in the case officer’s report. In response to another issue raised by Members, he stated that the density was similar to adjoining developments and that the local road network would benefit from improvements to help alleviate the ‘rat run’ along Attwood Lane. He also advised that Welsh Water had now confirmed adoption of the sewer. Finally he explained that the loss of employment land was offset by its redevelopment for residential use given the lack of a five year land supply as required by the NPPF. Therefore the proposal was considered to accord with policy.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         A contribution to Holmer Primary School should be included in the Section 106 agreement.

·         Although Welsh Water had now adopted the sewerage network there were still issues in respect of drainage in the area.

·         The issues relating to contamination had not been addressed fully.

·         There could be health risks to the local community.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons and any other reasons considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         Loss of employment land

2.         Design and site levels

3.         Effect on the landscape amenity of the area

4.         Scale of contamination