Outline application for 35 Unit Housing Scheme with associated access.

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, Mr Wright, representing Kingstone and Thruxton Parish Council, and Mr Barton, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Reed, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The application had been discussed at length previously by Committee.

·         At the meeting of 30 January the Committee were told that the Core Strategy could not be given due weight however the draft Core Strategy was now out for consultation.

·         The draft Core Strategy stated that Kingstone was expected to grow by 14%.

·         This expansion equated to approximately five houses per year.

·         The application should be refused.

The debate was opened with a number of Members speaking in objection to the application. The first reason for refusal put forward by the Committee was in relation to Policy H10 of the Unitary Development plan, with particular reference made to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6. In respect of Paragraph 1 of Policy H10 it was noted that the last housing needs survey for Kingstone was undertaken in 2008 and was therefore not up to date. The Committee considered that the application was contrary to paragraphs 2 and 3 as the local housing conditions could satisfy the need, and the proposal was not respectful of the character and size of Kingstone. Finally it was noted that the application was for a mixed development and was therefore contrary to paragraph 6.

Members also considered the National Planning Policy Framework in formulating a motion to refuse the application. It was stated that paragraphs 11 and 215 supported the Committee in refusing the application. It was also noted that the NPPF stated that there should be a presumption that brownfield sites be developed ahead of greenfield sites.

Reference was then made to the Core Strategy, particularly RA2 Policy 1, which stated that any development had to respect the size, role and function of each village. The Committee were of the opinion that the proposed application did not meet this requirement.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised Members that as the Core Strategy was a consultation document at this stage it should be given very little weight in planning terms. He advised the Committee to make their decision based on the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members continued to debate the application and noted that the Core Strategy suggested a 14% increase in residential dwellings for Kingstone by 2031, they considered that the proposed application was therefore over development. The local concern regarding the application was also referred to. It was noted that the community consultation had concluded that 84% of the local residents opposed the application.

The Committee also noted that the foul drainage network would not be able to accommodate the development until it had been upgraded. Welsh Water had confirmed that these works were scheduled to be completed by April 2015. It was considered that any development was premature and that the key infrastructure should be in place prior to any planning permission being granted at the site.

Further concern was expressed regarding the sustainable nature of the site. The Committee considered that there was not enough evidence to confirm that Kingstone should be considered a sustainable location. Concern was expressed regarding employment opportunities and public transport links in the village. Concern was also expressed that the development itself had no sustainable features.

Members raised the issue of the lack of a 5 year housing supply throughout the County. They were of the opinion that this matter had to be addressed as a priority. They considered that their hands were tied at present as the Council could not provide a 5 year housing supply.

At the conclusion of the debate both the Head of Neighbourhood Planning and the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised the Committee in respect of the reasons for refusal put forward. The Committee were advised to focus on the UDP and NPPF in making their decision. It was noted that during the debate reference had been made to the possible harm the application could have on the character of the area; the lack of drainage infrastructure; the scale of the development in relation to the village and the inadequate public transport links. It was considered that these could form the grounds for refusing the application in conjunction with the policies referred to by the Committee during the debate, namely UDP Policy H10 and NPPF paragraphs 215 and 11.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that he had concerns regarding the reasons for refusal put forward and stated that in his opinion the decision could be susceptible if challenged.

Councillor Knipe was given the opportunity to close the debate but chose to make no further statement.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The site is located outside of the settlement boundary for Kingstone as defined in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. The development does not satisfy any of the exception criteria within Policies H7 and H10 and therefore the development is contrary to these policies. In particular it is considered that the proposal is contrary to criteria 3, 5 and 6 of Policy H10 in that it would be of a scale and form that would fail to respect the character and size of Kingstone; its location would not afford reasonable access to facilities, employment opportunities or public transport and it would consist of a mixed development including open market housing. Therefore, notwithstanding the current deficiency in the supply of housing land, having regard to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits.

2.         The failure to comply with criteria 3 of Policy H10 in terms of the unacceptable scale and adverse impact upon the character and size of the settlement would therefore fail to accord with Policies DR1, H4 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.         The failure to comply with criteria 5 of Policy H10, which requires reasonable access to facilities, employment opportunities and public transport, together with the current inadequacy of the existing Waste Water Treatment Works is such that the development cannot currently be served by satisfactory foul drainage arrangements. This renders the proposal unsustainable and contrary to Policies S1, S2, DR4 and CF2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The application is not accompanied by a completed Section 106 Agreement considered necessary to make the development acceptable and is therefore contrary to Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.