Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application.

(Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.)

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 added that if the Committee was minded to approve the application he proposed that an informative should be added stating that the proposed layout of the scheme was not acceptable and it must be ensured that the amenity of properties adjoining the site was protected.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pendleton, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K Wheeler, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Goldsworthy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PJ McCaull, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The access to the site was situated at a dangerous corner.  There had been a number of accidents and near misses in that location.  There would also be traffic management issues within the site itself.

·        He questioned the figures contained in the Transport Statement accompanying the application regarding the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate.  He considered the figure to be too low.  The surrounding area already suffered from traffic problems.

·        There were many houses for sale in Leominster.  He doubted whether there was a demand for more housing to be built.

·        The site was surrounded by residential development with no public open space.  The local community had expressed a wish for the land to be used to create a green open space, with a wildlife garden and other elements including redevelopment of a former pond.

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

·        There were visibility problems with the access.  In part these were caused by parked cars.

·        The development should be considered as infill development.

·        Road travel in the area was problematic.  The roads were narrow.  Two Doctors surgeries in the area added to the traffic difficulties.

·        Air pollution in the Bargates area was acknowledged as being of concern. Traffic measures agreed almost 3 years ago, including replacement of the traffic lights with “smart” versions, had not been implemented.  Any proposal that would increase traffic in that area should be rejected.

·        The assessment of the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate appeared to be too low.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on existing residents of the area.

·        An application in 2003 for a smaller development on the site had been refused. 

·        The site was outside the settlement boundary.  In opposition to this point it was observed that the Authority had already granted planning permission for a number of sites outside settlement boundaries having regard to national government policies as expressed through the NPPF.

·        There was support for the land to remain as open space.  It was noted in response, however, that the land was privately owned.

·        The proposal was contrary to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

·        Discussion focused on a view that the application for 35 houses represented overdevelopment and that a smaller development with the provision of some green space would be a preferable option.  It was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred to allow further discussions to take place with the applicant and other relevant parties.

·        In response to a question the Senior Litigator commented that he was inclined to the view that if the application were refused and an appeal lodged the Inspector would consider the appeal on the basis of the plans in place at the time the Committee made its decision. Account would not be taken of any progress made in the interim in relation to the adoption of the Core Strategy or the Leominster Neighbourhood Plan.  He would, however, research the matter.  Further questions were asked about the bearing this view had on the ability to advance an argument that developments were premature as emerging plans neared approval.

·        The Principal Planning Officer commented in relation to prematurity that the Core Strategy proposed 1,500 new homes in Leominster.  In that context it would be difficult to argue that a development of 35 houses would jeopardise strategic development objectives,

·        The Principal Planning Officer also commented that the application previously refused had been for 8 houses but on a smaller area.  Current UDP policy suggested that a density of 30-50 houses per hectare in that location would be acceptable. The emerging Core Strategy proposed a density level of 35 houses per hectare.  The proposal before the Committee represented a density level of 27-28 houses per hectare.

·        He clarified that the traffic flow figures at paragraph 6.21 of the report referred to trips during the peak flow periods.

·        The Development Manager commented that to refuse an application on highway grounds the impact of a development had to be severe.  That was not the case in this instance.  No weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan.  The County required housing development and Cabinet had agreed a policy that development outside settlement boundaries would be permitted in some circumstances.  The developer was offering an amount of public open space which would help offset the lack of play space in the area.  In considering whether the density of a development was appropriate a Planning Inspector would take account of the character of the surrounding area, which in this case was an area of dense development.  A proposed density of up to 28 houses per hectare was therefore readily acceptable.  He reiterated that the argument of prematurity could not be applied.  The Committee was being asked to consider the principle of development and access, not the detail of the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He suggested that a compromise might be possible.  He noted that he had not received objections to development to the one side of the hedge in the centre of the site.  He supported a deferral to permit further discussions.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred to permit further discussions to take place.