Proposed erection of 12 affordable dwellings, comprising a mixture of 2 and 3 bed houses.

The application was refused, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which had been deferred by the Committee on 11 December 2013, 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, Mrs A Cooke, Chair of Much Birch Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K James and Ms R Rigby, residents, spoke in objection.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

He was critical of the application, remarking on an absence of consultation and that he had not been kept informed of any negotiations following the Committee’s decision to defer the application..

The application failed to address the request that there should be a footpath to the A49 to Much Birch.  This footpath was vital.

He had sought without success to find a solution with the landowner.

The design of the affordable housing was poor. 

The site was a greenfield site.

He disputed the Transportation Manager’s comment at paragraph 4.2 of the report that the proposed footpath linked to Wormelow.

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) did not support the proposal as set out at paragraph 4.3 of the report.

He questioned the statement in paragraph 4.5 of the report that the Housing Association had held various consultation events with the community.

Contrary to the applicant’s agents response at paragraph 5.5 of the report there was not a shortfall of pupils in Much Birch primary school.  The school was full.

A further deferral was not an option.  He therefore requested that the Committee refuse the application.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The application should be refused on the grounds of highway safety and inadequate pedestrian access to Much Birch,  the main village which residents of the development would wish to access.  It was likely that the occupants of the affordable housing provided for in the development would have to walk their children to school.  The development was unsustainable. The principle of the development, the National Planning Policy Framework and the absence of a 5 year housing land supply did not outweigh these concerns.

It was suggested that landscape impact, drainage and biodiversity, identified alongside highway safety and pedestrian access at paragraph 6.1 of the report as key considerations in the determination of the application, also represented grounds for refusal.

The design of the affordable housing was poor.

There was a need for traffic management measures in Tump Lane and, although not within the remit of the planning application, it was important that they were not overlooked.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and requested that the application be refused.

The Development Manager commented that when first presented to the Committee officers had recommended refusal of the application on the grounds of pedestrian safety and that the development was unsustainable with no safe means of pedestrian access.  He considered that this could still be advanced as a ground for refusal by the Committee if that was the Committee’s view.  The Conservation Officer (Landscapes) had not supported the application and whilst Planning Officers had not considered this to be a ground for refusal this was a matter of balance and it was within the Committee’s discretion to attach greater weight to the Conservation Officer’s views.

He did not consider that drainage and biodiversity represented grounds for refusal given the responses from statutory consultees set out in the report.

The Legal Officer commented that refusal on two grounds supported by good evidence was a sound approach, rather than seeking to identify numerous grounds which were not supported by strong evidence.

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: highway safety and pedestrian access, the development being therefore unsustainable; and landscape impact.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reason(s) for refusal. Members of the planning committee which took the decision to refuse planning permission have stated the concerns in clear terms and these are considered so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.