Proposed development of 12 nos. Dwellings, consisting of 5 nos. Affordable and 7 nos. Open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed development of 12 nos. Dwellings, consisting of 5 nos. Affordable and 7 nos. Open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.)

The Lead Development Manager 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 the Committee had originally approved the application in January 2015, subject to a Section 106 agreement.  However, following the decision a Judicial Review had been made and the decision notice subsequently quashed. The application had been resubmitted for determination. The presentation highlighted the position of the listed buildings in the locality together with the Conservation Area.  Members had visited the site and surrounding area as part of a committee site visit the day before.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Thompson, of Kingsland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Drayton, of DPDS consulting, speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sharp-Smith, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mrs W Schenke, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         He highlighted the significance of the protection of the conservation area, and the boundary of the settlement area.  The Core Strategy supported the importance of preserving conservation areas and listed buildings and their settings.  The development was outside the settlement boundary but inside the conservation area.  There was a duty to protect the conservation area.

·         Some weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan which supported infill and windfall development within settlement boundaries.

·         A number of previous applications to develop the site had been refused because of the impact on the Conservation Area before permission had been granted in January 2015.  That grant of permission had, however, been overturned by judicial review.

·         Kingsland had a number of identified sites for housing development including affordable housing.  The proposed development was therefore unnecessary.  Small pockets of development were preferred.

·         He questioned Welsh Water’s lack of objection to the proposal.  This did not appear to acknowledge the ongoing problems with sewerage.

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

·         It appeared that there was a difference of opinion within the local community about the application.

·         The Committee had approved the same application in January 2015.  Whilst that decision had been quashed following judicial review, the grounds for that challenge, as referred to at paragraph 1.5 of the report were questioned.  It was asserted that the development would not be detrimental to the conservation area that there was no adverse impact on the heritage assets in the vicinity and that the provision of 12 houses including 5 affordable dwellings would be of benefit, noting the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply.  The design of the proposed dwellings were an improvement upon the earlier application.

·         There was a presumption against development in a conservation area where the public benefit did not outweigh the harm.   The public benefit of the development was not sufficient to offset the harm to the conservation area and the erosion of the gap between settlements.  The application did not enhance the environment.

·         The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England had highlighted that the site had been part of a Special (local) Wildlife Site, categorised as an unimproved hay meadow.  Although that designation had lapsed and the field had been ploughed the land had now been reseeded and it was considered that if left alone and cut for hay some of the previously identified meadow flora would probably re-emerge.

·         Clarification was requested on the status of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  The Lead Development Manager referred to the schedule of updates which stated that although the NDP had been resubmitted and was the subject of a Regulation 16 consultation the expectation was that the previous objections would be levied and that only limited weight could therefore be given to the Plan.

·         A member expressed concern about the consistency of advice being provided by the Council to those preparing NDPs.

The Lead Development Manager referred to the application of paragraph 134 of the NPPF and the requirement to balance the public benefit of the scheme against the harm it would cause.  His view was that the proposal would cause irretrievable damage to the conservation area.

The legal adviser clarified the factors that could be addressed through a judicial review, noting that these could include an assessment of whether the process followed had been lawful and whether the application of policies had been interpreted correctly.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He supported the Parish Council’s strategy for housing provision set out in the NDP which principally provided for infill and windfall development within existing settlement boundaries. He reiterated that the proposal would have a major adverse impact on the conservation area that was not outweighed by any public benefit.

It was proposed that the application should be approved.  Reasons advanced for approval included the reasons for approval in January 2015 and that the public benefit including 5 affordable dwellings and the improved design outweighed the harm to the conservation area, policies SS2, SS3, RA1, RA2, RA3 and H3 and the contribution the application would make to reducing the housing shortfall in Kingsland Parish.  It was added that approval should be subject to a S106 agreement and provision for consultation on the detailed conditions with the Chairman and local ward member.

The motion that the application be approved was lost.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area by eroding the open space and thereby coalescence of the built form contrary to policy LD4 and RA2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and NPPF.

2.         The proposed development by virtue of its location and prominent position is considered to be harmful to the landscape quality by impact detrimentally to the setting and approach to Kingsland contrary to Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy.

INFORMATIVE:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.