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, which was a resubmission of an application refused by the Committee on 13 November 2013.   Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He commented that the site was considered sustainable in terms of its location and, although not previously developed, the principle of development could be accepted in the context of the housing land supply deficit.  There were no identified significant and demonstrable adverse impacts outweighing the benefits associated with the scheme. 

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 K Rolfe, a resident, spoke in objection.  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 that the proposed pedestrian access arrangements had been slightly amended.  However, he considered that the new proposals would place pedestrians in an even more vulnerable position.  The Traffic Manager stated at page 75 of the report that the proposed footway widths would fall short of the Council’s desirable standards.

The other grounds the Committee had advanced for refusing the application, concerns over the vehicle access and the impact on historic buildings and their surroundings remained valid. 

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Traffic Manager’s concluding comment in the report was, “The pedestrian connectivity and its impact on travel by sustainable modes remains a concern.”  In the update issued to the Committee he stated that the applicant’s latest proposal for footway improvements “may give pedestrians a false sense of security”.  Several Members stated that they considered the pedestrian access to be of particular concern and did not want the potential for an accident to be on their conscience.

·         Little had changed in the resubmitted application and the grounds for refusal previously advanced and set out in the decision notice appended to the report, unsatisfactory pedestrian access, unsatisfactory vehicular access and the impact on historic buildings and their surroundings remained valid.  It was noted that the ground for refusal previously advanced that the land was potentially contaminated was proposed to be addressed through a condition.

·         The developers had offered little in relation to the design of the Scheme to encourage the Committee to support the development.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that it should be noted that the Traffic Manager had suggested that the applicant investigated the feasibility of the pedestrian access now being proposed, although as reported in the update the Traffic Manager was concerned about the proposal that had come forward.  He acknowledged Members’ concerns about the pedestrian access.  However, he commented that those pedestrian routes were currently in existence and the Committee had to consider whether there was evidence to support a view that the risk posed by the creation of 30 dwellings outweighed the benefits of the Scheme.  In terms of the vehicular access this met the relevant standards. 

The Development Manager commented that he supported the Principal Planning Officer’s analysis.  The developers had not done all that they could to advance their cause.  However, in his view it would be very difficult to defend an appeal against refusal of planning permission and it was possible that costs could be awarded against the Council.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the Scheme and that in his view the Council needed to be proactive in seeking to ensure the safety of access to developments.

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 as set out in the decision notice for the previous application 131964/0 appended to the report, namely in summary:

·         unsatisfactory vehicular access

·         unsatisfactory pedestrian access

·         significant and demonstrable harm contrary to ‘saved’ Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies DR1, H13, HBA4, HBA9,LA2 and LA3.