Site for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping.

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

(Site for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping.)

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 R Page, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council and  Mr R Wilkins of Avenbury Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. Mr T Ayres, of RPS Planning and Development, spoke in objection.  Mr L Lane, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JG Lester and A Seldon, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Lester commented on a number of issues including:

·         If considered in isolation, the site had arguments both in favour of it and against it.  However, the site could not be considered in isolation given the proposed strategic housing allocation being promoted as part of the Core Strategy on land opposite the application site known as Hardwick Bank.

·         The Town Council in its submissions as part of the examination in public of the Core Strategy had indicated that it was in favour of housing development.  Bromyard needed growth.

·         He commended the community benefits offered in the s106 agreement. 

·         The Pencombe Lane site would provide only a proportion of the housing Bromyard needed.   The Hardwick Bank site could accommodate more houses and meet the whole need.  It could be argued that the Pencombe Lane application was premature and prejudiced the development of the Hardwick Bank site.  In particular there was concern, as reflected in a letter from RPS Planning and Development, about the provision of a separate access to the Pencombe Lane site jeopardising development of the Hardwick Bank site.

·         He acknowledged the officers’ comments in the report on the question of prematurity.  However, the Hardwick Bank site could accommodate more than the proposed strategic allocation of 250 dwellings meaning that there would not be a housing shortfall to meet as the report suggested.  The Town Council supported a larger development at Hardwick Bank because this would facilitate the creation of a link road between the A44 and the Tenbury Road.

·         The Planning Inspector was soon to reach a decision on the Core Strategy.  It was therefore premature to determine the application now given the implications if the Town Council’s submission to the Inspector were to be supported.

·         Because the Pencombe Lane site was not designated in any way this did not mean that weight could not be given to the site’s prominence and the impact of the proposed development on the landscape.  The Hardwick Bank site did not have the same impact.

Councillor A Seldon commented on a number of issues including:

·         He criticised the current operation of the planning system expressing concern that the Town Council had felt compelled to secure independent legal advice in order to challenge the Council’s Planning Department. 

·         The Town Council had opposed development south of the A44 and questioned the retention of such a site within the Core Strategy.

·         The site was prominent in the landscape.

·         The Hardwick Bank site could accommodate the growth Bromyard needed making it unnecessary to consider the Pencombe Lane site.

·         The development would jeopardise the development of a link road between the A44 and the Tenbury road which would remove the need for  HGVs to travel through the Town Centre.

·         A development of up to 120 houses was a significant development in relation to Bromyard’s population.

·         Paragraph 216 of the NPPF stated that weight could be given to an emerging plan and the more advanced the preparation of the plan the greater the weight that may be given.  The Core Strategy had now completed its examination in public and was therefore at an advanced stage.

·         Whilst it might be technically acceptable in theory, the access to the development was of concern given the topography of the location.  If it was considered that it jeopardised the development of the strategic housing site it should be refused.

·         The landscape impact was of particular significance.  Recent decisions by Planning Inspectors following appeals had stated that land did not have to have a designated status to be of value.  There was an alternative strategic site at Hardwick Bank.  That site should be developed, permitting a link road to be constructed between the A44 and the Tenbury Road.

·         There was also concern about the noise nuisance because of proximity to the A44.

·         The site was grade 2 agricultural land and the NPPF stated that alternatives should be considered where development was proposed on such land.

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

·         Prematurity was an issue.  A development of up to 120 dwellings represented a large development for Bromyard and there was a risk that it would prejudice the development of the strategic Hardwick Bank site identified within the Core Strategy. 

·         The development of the Hardwick Bank site would permit the construction of a link road between the A44 and the Tenbury Road and support the future prosperity of Bromyard.

·         The Development Manager commented that no application or pre-application submission for the development of the Hardwick Bank area. 

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the landscape as highlighted in the response from the Conservative Manager (landscape) set out in section 4.4 report.  This noted amongst other things that the landscape was identified as being of High Sensitivity within the Urban Fringe Landscape Sensitivity Analysis due to its visual prominence.

·         The concerns about prematurity and the effect on the landscape outweighed the weight that was being given in the officers’ report to the absence of five year housing land supply.

·         It was suggested the development was contrary to policies S1 and LA3.

·         Both Bromyard and Winslow Town Council and Avenbury Parish Council objected to the proposal.

·         It was to be regretted that the Town Council was not developing a Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The NPPF stated that alternatives should be considered where development was proposed on grade 2 agricultural land.

·         The site had been assessed under the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as having significant landscape constraints.

·         The Committee could not assume that an application would be forthcoming for the Hardwick Bank site.  Nor could it assume that a development would finance the construction of a link road.  It should determine the application before it on its merits.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Lester commented that no Neighbourhood Plan had been proposed because there was no industrial land identified for Bromyard in the draft Core Strategy and it had been envisaged that the Hardwick Bank site identified for development within the Strategy would meet all Bromyard’s housing need.  He reiterated that he considered the application to be premature and that it would jeopardise the strategic Hardwick Bank site.

Councillor Seldon reiterated his opposition to the development on the grounds of prematurity, policy S1 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF, noting also that some 20% of the site was in the Parish of Avenbury which had no housing allocation in the Core Strategy.

The Development Manager commented that if the Core Strategy was approved Bromyard would need approximately 500 new dwellings, with 250 of these to be provided on a strategic housing site at Hardwick Bank. Additional housing sites were therefore needed.  Policy LA 2 was the more relevant policy if the Committee considered the development would have an adverse effect on the landscape.  However, significant weight did need to be given to the absence of a five year housing land supply.  He reiterated that there had been no application or pre-application submission for the Hardwick Bank site.  The Committee had to consider the application before it on its merits. He noted that only four letters of objection had been received.

The Solicitor sought and received confirmation of the Committee’s view that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the landscape and visual amenity of the area and would be premature and prejudicial to the implementation of the strategic core strategy for Bromyard, particularly in relation to the proposed Hardwick Bank site.

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be refused 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 proposal would have an adverse effect on the landscape and visual amenity of the area and be premature and prejudicial to the implementation of the strategic core strategy for Bromyard, particularly in relation to the proposed Hardwick Bank site.