Development of 50 new dwellings of which 18 will be affordable.

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 G Davies, Vice-Chairman of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms L Rowberry, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs S Griffiths, 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:

Maintaining the separation between the two villages of Bartestree and Lugwardine was important. The report stated at paragraph 4.6 that the scheme proposed would occupy the one remaining clear and undeveloped area between the two villages.

The Conservation Manager (Historic buildings and Conservation) had commented that the development would be contrary to policy HBA4.

An application for 50 houses was too big.  The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had identified 25 units on this site.  An allocation of 190 houses had been identified for Bartestree and Lugwardine over 20 years. Several applications were pending which could mean the area having 118 houses built within two years.

Some recent applications for small infill housing developments had been supported locally.

He criticised the proposed location of the affordable houses within the development.

There were concerns about highway safety and pedestrian safety.

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had expressed several reservations about the development including questioning whether its sustainability had been demonstrated as defined in UDP policies S1 and S2.

There was a concern that flooding would be increased.

There was no public open space provided within the development itself.

Better applications would come forward which would command local support.  The views of local people should not be overridden simply because of the absence of the 5 year housing land supply.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) and the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings and Conservation) had both been scathing about the development.

The housing land supply situation was acknowledged.  However, whilst the Home Farm, Belmont appeal had concluded that the Council was not meeting the 5 year housing supply the appeal had been dismissed on the grounds that the development was inappropriate in the setting. Herefordshire was characterised by the fact that, outside the City and the Market Towns, settlements had not converged. Policy LA 3 was clear that convergence did not have to be supported.  The strength of local opposition to the development and the convergence it brought between Bartestree and Lugwardine was clear. The Conservation Manger at point 4.6 on page 106 of the agenda papers had concluded that, “In principle it is considered that the development of the greenfield site for housing would be detrimental to the legibility and character of Bartestree and Lugwardine.”

The development was overbearing and the impact too severe.  It was questioned whether such big blocks of development were sustainable. 

Members advanced several grounds for refusing the application considering that these did outweigh the presumption in favour of development within the NPPF: LA3, LA2, DR1, LA5, LA6, HBA4, Pedestrian Access, Negative Effect on footpath LU6F1, Water Pressure issues, the lack of certainty about the future management of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) pond, Absence of Open Space in the development, There was not a sufficient mix of homes as required by the NPPF (paragraph 56), and MT1

The NPPF provided that if the land was grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land it should not be built upon.  The grading needed to be clarified to establish whether this represented an additional ground for refusal.

It was accepted that concerns about drainage had been satisfied.

In response to a question the Development Manager commented that in terms of school provision the Education service had identified capacity issues but had not objected to the development. 

In response to questions about the standard of the access onto the A438, the Principal Planning Officer explained the approach that had been taken to the definition of the visibility splays and confirmed that this was to the higher Design Manual for Roads and Bridges standard.

In relation to the absence of open space within the development, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the provision of off-site contributions to support/enhance local recreational facilities was regarded as the most appropriate approach by the Parks and Countryside team

The Development Manager commented that the issues of landscape character and avoiding convergence between Bartestree and Lugwardine were material considerations, as was the impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building.  Whilst officers had weighed this in the planning balance in the report and recommended approval it was open to the Committee to reach the view that the impact of the development outweighed the benefits.  He suggested that if this was the Committee’s conclusion, policies LA2, LA3 HBA4, DR1, H13 and HBA9 would be defendable grounds for refusal.  The agricultural land classification would be examined and consideration given to including this in the reasons for refusal.

The Legal Officer commented that she was satisfied that the reasons for refusal, as commented upon by the  Development Manager, were supported by expert opinion.  She further noted that there were some distinctions between the site at Home Farm, Belmont and the site before the Committee.  She reiterated that the ‘planning balance’ should be considered in reaching a decision.

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

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication: policies LA2, LA3 HBA4,DR1, H13 and HBA9.

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 reasons for refusal.  The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.