Proposed residential development of 22 open market family homes and 11 affordable homes.

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

(Proposed residential development of 22 open market family homes and 11 affordable homes.)

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.  He highlighted that the impact on the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and whether the proposed development represented a major development within the local context were the critical issues.  Officers had concluded that the development was not a major development.  He drew attention to the reference in the update to the intervention of the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) for the Department for Communities and Local Government and a proposed change to the recommendation recommending that the Committee be minded to approve the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Simmons, Chairman of Fownhope Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Whitmey, a local 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 WLS Bowen spoke in the role of the local ward member, having acted in that capacity on behalf of local residents for this planning application because the local ward member Councillor J Hardwick was the applicant.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Planning Group opposed the application.

·         The application was within the AONB and outside but adjoining the settlement boundary for Fownhope.

·         Account needed to be taken of the proximity of the Cherry Hill Wood SSSI.

·         The site was opposite the Grade II listed Mill House Farm complex.

·         One view was that the development should be treated as a major development. However, Fownhope was a proposed ‘main village within the Core Strategy.  Using a baseline figure of 342 dwellings the proposed development represented less than 10% growth and less that half of the growth proposed within the Core Strategy and included 11 affordable homes.  The Principal Planning Officer had concluded that the development was not a major development.  He highlighted the comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) in bold type in paragraph 6.12 of the report.

·         There was some adverse impact on the landscape.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England objected.  However, the applicant had done a considerable amount to mitigate this impact.

·         The development had little impact on the road network.

·         Funding was available with the proposed Section 106 agreement to improve footpath access.

·         The statutory consultees did not object to the development.

·         Weight had to be given to the Council’s lack of a 5 yr housing land supply.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         It was observed that whether the development was to be treated as a major development was a matter of opinion not fact.  Various opinions were expressed on this point.  In particular reference was made to paragraph 6.10 of the report setting out the National Planning Policy Guidance on whether a proposed development in a designated area should be treated as a major development.  Attention in this context was drawn to the extract from the comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) at paragraph 6.12 of the report that: the development would result in “a locally significant adverse change in character of this part of the village”.  Although the Conservation Manager went on to say that there was the potential for mitigation, the negative impact, whether or not it could be mitigated to some extent was a key consideration.  The development should be considered a major development, engaging paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         The absence of a five year housing supply had to be weighed against the guardianship of the AONB. 

·         The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Council assessed Fownhope’s contribution to housing growth in the core strategy at 73 houses; the Parish Council considered 61 houses would meet the percentage of growth required.  This represented 49% or 54% respectively of the proposed growth requirement.

·         The Cherry Hill SSI was a particularly beautiful part of the County.  The Wye Valley AONB Partnership was quoted in the report as follows: "the Wye Valley is regarded as one of the finest lowland landscapes in Britain, with the River Wye one the nation's favourite rivers.”

·         The application did seek to mitigate the impact of the development.

·         Measures to make the affordable housing energy efficient and therefore affordable and sustainable in the longer term would have been welcomed.

·         It was asked whether a condition could be imposed passing control of the proposed orchard to the Parish Council so that any further development of the site would require the Parish Council’s approval.  The appropriateness of such an approach was questioned. The Principal Planning Officer commented that paragraph 4 of the draft heads of terms left the maintenance of public open space open for negotiation.

·         Account should be taken of local opposition to the development.

·         It was questioned whether the width of the current footpath was sufficient and whether that width could be adequately maintained given the overhanging trees.  The Transportation Manager confirmed that the feasibility of providing a footpath direct from the development to the village alongside the B4224 had been assessed and one could not be provided.

·         It was suggested that the current 30mph speed restriction should be moved back further in advance of the access to the development.

·         The development was sustainable and there should therefore be a presumption in favour of development given the absence of a five housing land supply.

·         There were no objections from the statutory consultees.

·         The proposed provision of bungalow was welcome.

·         In conclusion, it was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that it did represent a “major” development and that as such paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework applied.  This required permission for a major development in an AONB to be refused save in exceptional circumstances and where it could be demonstrated the proposed development was in the public interest

The Development Manager commented that if the Committee considered the development was a “major” development paragraph 116 of the NPPF was engaged.  He added that the absence of a completed S106 agreement was a further ground for refusal.

The Solicitor sought and received confirmation of the Committee’s view that the development was a “major” development and that the exceptional circumstances in paragraph 116 of the NPPF had not been met and the development would have an adverse effect upon the AONB.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He noted that in deciding whether an application represented a “major” development regard had to be had to the local context and it was a fine balance.  He reiterated the benefits of the Scheme, noted the absence of a five year housing land supply and the Parish Council’s objection.

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 based on the Committee’s view that the application represented “major” development and that paragraph 116 of the NPPF was therefore engaged, and the consequent test of “exceptional circumstances” had not been met in that (i)  there was not sufficient evidence from the developer of the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and (ii) the development would have an adverse effect on the AONB; and a S106 agreement  had not been completed.