Residential development comprising 20 open market homes and 10 affordable homes.

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Davis, Vice-Chairman of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council,  and Mrs Rolfe, a resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr J Spreckley the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The proposed development was not sustainable because the access off the A438 was below standard and demonstrably unsafe.   The A438 was a very busy road.    There was a risk of traffic backing up as vehicles waited to turn into the development and heavy lorries hurrying up and down the A438 posed a particular hazard.  Visibility could also be affected by mist and fog caused by proximity to the River Lugg.  The traffic survey had been undertaken at the wrong location and did not reflect the actual speeds of vehicles passing the development site itself.

·         The proposed access arrangements acknowledged the difficulty by seeking to maximise the available land for the access.  However, this had the effect of making the access run up against adjoining cottages whose occupants’ access would therefore be directly onto the highway.

·         The footpath leading to the village was narrow and single file.  Parents, for example, with a pushchair and another child would be at risk. The suggestion that railings might be put up to separate the footpath from the highway entailed a risk to the foundations of the C17 properties alongside the footpath and the possibility of a claim for damages.

·         Cotts Lane was used as a rat run and was not a suitable alternative pedestrian access.

·         There had been a lack of engagement by the developers with the local community.

·         An application for a smaller development nearby off the A438 had been refused planning permission because it was out of character.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Traffic Manager’s comments did not reflect the reality of the situation and the volume of traffic that the development would generate both from residents and vehicles servicing the development.  Both usability and visibility needed to be considered.

·         Pedestrian safety was a concern.  The footpath to the village alongside the A438 was single file and raised above the highway.  Any pedestrian who slipped ran the risk of falling into the road.  The Council could do nothing to require pedestrians to use an alternative route.  In addition, the possible use of Cotts Lane as a pedestrian route did not form part of the application and that lane also had no pavement.

·         The lack of consultation by the developers with the community and provision of information was completely at odds with the provisions in the Localism Act 2011.

·         Linear development would change Lugwardine’s character.

·         There was a suggestion that tests to establish whether the land was contaminated should be undertaken prior to granting planning permission.

·         It was noted that the Council’s barrister was currently arguing at a Public Inquiry that the Council had in fact met the 5-year housing land supply.  Clarification was sought on the bearing this had on the report before the Committee.

The Planning Lawyer referred to paragraph 6.3 of the report which noted that the scale of the housing land supply deficit was evolving. The matter had been discussed at a recent Public Inquiry and the Council had put forward a strong case that the supply requirement is being met.  However, only when a decision or formal position was published would the Council be able to assert that the supply is being met.

·         The Chairman undertook to request a statement from the relevant Cabinet Member for Members on the housing land supply.

·         It was argued that whilst the report focused on the presumption in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to the 5-year housing land supply there were other elements of that framework to which weight could also be given but to which there was no reference.

·         The development was a mile away from the nearest shop and not close to the school.  It would rely on car travel and insufficient pathways and was not sustainable.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the Council’s design guide provided that a footpath should be 2 meters wide.  This width could not be achieved in the location under discussion even with the mitigating measures proposed.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that if Members were minded to refuse planning permission it was essential that clear reasons for refusal were identified. In his opinion it might be argued that the pedestrian route from the site to facilities, which as the report acknowledged could not be made to meet the council’s design guide requirement of 2 metres width, was a potential ground for refusal.  He expressed reservations about advancing the visibility and vehicular access as grounds for refusal.  He clarified the perceived benefits of the Scheme and sought clarification on the suggestion that the development would have a harmful impact on Lugwardine’s character to the extent that it would outweigh the Scheme’s benefits.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated his opposition to the Scheme.

Members then discussed grounds for refusing the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the reasons for refusal in accordance with the following grounds advanced by Members, namely:

·         MT1 – Traffic management, highway safety and promoting active travel

·         Single access –concerns about usability and visibility

·         LD1 – Local Distinctiveness (character of area/linear development and Seventeenth Century Housing) - landscaping measures would not provide sufficient mitigation

·         LD2 – Landscape and Townscape

·         ID1 – Infrastructure Delivery

·         Pedestrian Safety

·         Lack of consultation and information

·         Potentially contaminated land

(Note:  For the avoidance of doubt the references to policies above have been updated in the decision notice by officers to reflect the Unitary Development Plan policy references and the National Planning Policy Framework)

(The meeting adjourned between 11.05 and 11.15 am)