Proposed residential development for up to 37 dwellings of which 13 (35%) will be affordable.

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

(Proposed residential development for up to 37 dwellings of which 13 (35%) will be affordable.)

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 noted that in November 2014 the Committee had refused planning permission for the erection of up to 46 dwellings on land to the west of Upper Court Road, Bosbury (application reference P141550/O), and that application was currently the subject of an appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Whitehead of Bosbury and Coddington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Hosking, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Deeley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AW Johnson, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The village was close to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the centre of the village was a Conservation Area.  The proposed development of 37 dwellings would have a considerable impact. There were 350 dwellings within the whole Parish, but only 100 in the core settlement.  The development would therefore represent a 37% increase. The Core Strategy envisaged 14% growth over the period 2011-2031.  The proposed development was disproportionate.   The Committee had previously refused an application for 46 dwellings which was currently the subject of an appeal. 

·         The proposal was contrary to policy.

·         The development would have a detrimental and unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the village. 

·         An application for a single dwelling on a site close to the proposed attenuation pond for the development had recently been refused because of its impact on the visual amenity of the village.

·         Whilst officers had made no objection on highway grounds, the proposed access was of concern.

·         The site was already vulnerable to flooding caused by rain and development would make the situation worse with consequences for land downstream of the development.

·         Improvement to the sewerage works would be required.  The application made no reference to this issue.

·         The applicant had not consulted the Parish Council and had omitted 50% of residents from the distribution of a letter they had sent out including those most affected by the proposal.

·         Weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Plan which the Parish Council had in part funded itself.  The Plan would meet the development need envisaged within the Core Strategy through development within the settlement boundary.   Sensitive and appropriate growth was acceptable.

·         The Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply was being exploited by developers creating pressure to accept developments which in other circumstances would have been refused.

·         There were sound grounds for refusing the proposal.

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

·         An application for a single dwelling close to the application site which had had local support had been refused.

·         The Parish Council and local ward member opposed the development.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) objected to the proposal.

·         The development was disproportionate.

·         There would be detrimental impact on the village and its historic buildings.

·         The development was visually intrusive.

·         Although the area was not designated it was an important setting close to an AONB.

·         Weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The site was outside the settlement boundary.

·         The grounds for refusal outweighed the Council’s lack of a five year supply of housing land. 

·         A Member suggested that evidence presented at the public examination of the Core Strategy supported the view that the Council had a five year supply of housing land.

·         There was no reference to energy efficiency measures in respect of the proposed dwellings.

·         There was insufficient local employment available.

·         If the development were to be approved regard should be had to the recommendations of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) set out on pages 18/19 of the agenda papers.

The Development Manager commented that, given the Committee’s view appeared to be opposed to the development the strongest grounds for refusal were those advanced by the Conservation Manager (Landscape).  Weight should be given to the Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply.  Only limited weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan as it had only reached Regulation 15 stage. The Core Strategy envisaged 14% growth calculated with reference to the 350 dwellings in Bosbury Parish not with reference to the 100 dwellings in the main village.

He added that housing development in the County had previously taken place at 200 dwellings per year.  Some 825 dwellings a year needed to be built to meet the Core Strategy target. Sites such as the one proposed would need to be developed if this target was to be met.  The five year housing land supply figures would shortly be submitted to the Planning Inspector for final consideration.  The Scheme did provide 35% affordable housing.

He urged some caution regarding the possibility of an appeal against refusal of permission.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged the pressures officers faced in relation to the absence of a 5 year housing land supply.  However, the village did not have the ability and facilities to absorb a development of the scale proposed.  The development would not have been countenanced before such weight had been required to be attached to the housing land supply.

The following grounds for refusing the application were advanced:  the development would have a detrimental effect and was contrary to policies LA2 and LA3, contrary to the NPPF and the Neighbourhood Plan; and there was also a lack of a signed section 106 agreement.

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 a detrimental effect and was contrary to policies LA2 and LA3, contrary to the NPPF and the Neighbourhood Plan; and there was also a lack of a signed section 106 agreement.