Proposed residential development of up to 50 Homes.

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 50 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Bartup of Marden Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Parkes, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms R Andrews, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The site was in an elevated position in the open countryside on the edge of Marden. It was isolated and not close to the school or shops.  She agreed with the Parish Council’s view that the site was not sustainable.  It conflicted with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it was not land of the right type,  not in the right place and did not meet the community’s need.

·        The large development proposed would have an adverse impact on the setting and landscape and would be out of character.

·        Haywood lane which joined the A49 to Marden crossed the Grade 2* listed Leystone bridge.  Heavy traffic had to cross this bridge to reach the S& A Davies site which was opposite the proposed development.  The lane was also subject to flooding and was then closed by new floodgates.

·        The Neighbourhood Plan was at Regulation 14 Stage.  The Plan sought to achieve a vibrant village centre with proportionate growth, retaining the villager character.  A consultation exercise had concluded that this was the least favoured site for development out of five identified.  There was a preferred site in the heart of the village. It was proposed that a community hall would be provided as part of that development. 

·        There were concerns that the site was close to the River Lugg flood plain and that water run off could have an adverse effect on the River Lugg and the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  She highlighted the comments of Natural England set out in the Committee update relating to phosphate levels in the River Wye.

·        She cited a number of policy grounds for refusing the application.

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

·        The development would provide affordable housing.

·        The village was sustainable.  The development had connectivity to the village and was also therefore sustainable.  There were no strong grounds for refusal.

·        A Member commented that the report stated that the development would not have an adverse impact on the River Lugg.  Others expressed the view that the cumulative effect of posphates in the rivers was of concern.

·        The Parish Council was opposed to the proposal.

·        The access to the development was 800m from the school/village hall and shop.  It was generally accepted that people would use cars to travel distances greater than 400m.

·        The site had been considered during the 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. to have significant constraints.  This related to the apparent lack of pedestrian access to the village.  There was a risk to pedestrians from the lorries travelling to the S&A Davies site.

·        There was some suggestion that the proposed footpath from the development would not connect with the existing footpath as there was an area between the two that was in private ownership.  In response the Traffic Manager commented that a footpath could be provided within the highway boundary.

·        There were two other proposed potential sites within the centre of Marden, one for 90 houses next to the school.

·        A concern was expressed that the development was in conflict with the neighbouring farming operation which generated frequent lorry movements.  Noise attenuation measures were unsatisfactory.  The development was contrary to policy DR13.  It did not fulfil the definition of sustainable development within the NPPF. 

·        The benefits of the scheme had to be balanced against the harm it might cause.  The development was on an elevated site and would have a negative impact on the landscape and the historic setting.  The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had expressed some reservations. There were also environmental concerns about the impact on the River Lugg and the River Wye SAC.  These factors weighed against the development.

·        It had been clarified since the Committee’s previous meeting that if the Committee were to refuse an application a Planning Inspector hearing any appeal would take account of the circumstances before him including any developments that might have taken place since the Committee made its decision such as, in this case, the adoption of both the Core Strategy and the Marden Neighbourhood Plan.  Paragraph 17 of the NPPF stated that one of the planning principles should be that planning was plan led.  This supported a decision to refuse the application.

The Development Manager commented that the Committee should consider the site on its own merits.  There was no evidence that technical issues including water management could not be addressed.

The Head of Development Management and Environmental Health commented that noise had not been raised as an issue with the Environmental Health Service.  In response to a question he stated that, historically there had been some local public concerns about the operation of S&A Davies.  However, a residents liaison group had been established and his understanding was that matters were now satisfactory. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her opposition to the proposal.  She considered the development in the open countryside to be very detrimental.  There were concerns about the location near to S&A Davies including noise and highway safety issues.

A motion that the application be approved was defeated.

Members advanced a number of grounds for refusal taking into account the representation of the Parish Council set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report and a number of policies cited as grounds for refusal by the local ward member.  Following a brief adjournment the Senior Litigator suggested that the principal grounds for refusal Members had identified could be summarised as landscaping, lack of integration with the community and sustainability.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the grounds of landscaping, lack of integration with the community and sustainability.