Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application).

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

(Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application).

The 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 highlighted the position of listed buildings in relation to the proposed development.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs F Helme, of Ashperton Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Edwards, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group, spoke in objection.  Mr H Davies, the applicant, and Mrs P Upton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application had generated considerable public interest.  The applicant had held consultation events and engaged with the local community on the proposal.  The original scheme for 27 houses had been reduced to a proposal for 10 houses in response to local views. 

·        The Parish Council had fully debated the proposal.

·        There had been 48 objections.  The majority of local residents considered the scheme to be inappropriate.

·        There was a view that the scheme was in the wrong location and would have a negative effect on Ashperton.  It was considered that it would be visible from the road, with properties situated prominently above the A417, and have a suburban appearance.  Piecemeal development was preferable to what would be an enclave uncharacteristic of the area.

·        There was concern that the development would be incongruous with the listed buildings in the village.  Paragraph 6.49 of the report stated that in designing the scheme regard had been had to concern expressed about the impact on the setting.  However, in his opinion the development would significantly alter the view.  Whilst it was located at a low point of the site it was still much higher than the existing settlement.

·        Whilst, as paragraph 6.46 explained, the site had no formal landscape designation local residents considered that it did have an important landscape value adding to the amenity of the area.  The development would not enhance the landscape.  The community was not opposed to development in the village but considered that there were better sites that would not have such an adverse impact.

·        In conclusion, the development was proportionate, it could be debated as to whether it was sustainable development having regard to policy RA2, and it would contribute to the housing supply.  The question was whether these factors outweighed the local view that the development had a detrimental impact on the landscape and the proposal was therefore contrary to paragraph 17 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy SS6 of the Core Strategy.

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

·        The development was of modest size, of low density and of good design.

·        The proposal would provide additional homes for the village for which there was a need.

·        The applicant had engaged with the local community and modified the proposal in response to local views.

·        Weight should be given to the views expressed by a clear majority of local residents in opposition to the scheme.  It was to be regretted if a development was imposed on a community against its wishes when it had given careful consideration to identifying preferable alternatives.  In response to this point a member observed that there were letters in support of the application, the committee had to consider the application on its merits and could not take account of alternative sites.  The opposition of the local community did not in itself represent planning grounds for refusal.

·        Regrettably the Neighbourhood Development Plan was not sufficiently advanced for the Committee to give weight to it.

·        Having regard to paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whilst the Conservation Manager (Heritage) considered that there would be some impact on the listed buildings he did not consider this to be substantial.  There was scope for mitigation at the reserved matters stage.

·        The proposed scheme was prominent and uncharacteristic of the village.  It had an adverse impact on the landscape.  There must be preferable sites.

·        The proposal was contrary to Section 11 of the NPPF, noting the reference in paragraph 109 to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

·        The Parish Council’s submission presented a case that the application should not be supported on environmental sustainability grounds.

·        It was suggested that it would be beneficial if consideration could be given to the following issues at the reserved matters stage: extension of the 30 mph speed limit and provision of a pedestrian crossing; and ensuring that the development was of appropriate quality, to passivhaus standard if at all possible.  It would also be important to ensure that propose enhancement measures outlined at paragraphs 6.56 and 6.57 of the report were implemented and desirable if the applicant worked with the Parish Council on the design of the scheme to avoid a suburban appearance.

·        It was requested that the proposed condition in relation to the height of buildings should govern the ridge height.

The Lead Development Manager commented that whilst there was a considerable weight of local opposition there was also some local support for the scheme.  The proposed development was in the heart of the village, next to the village hall and close to the primary school, at which it was understood there was capacity.   Given the previous policy context it was not surprising that there had been limited development in the village.  However, policy RA 2 of the Core Strategy could now be given weight noting too the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply.  Weight could not be given to the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The landscape may be valued but had no official designation and as such only limited weight could be given to that factor.  The development had been reduced in scale and represented organic growth.  He considered that it would be difficult to defend an appeal against refusal of planning permission.  Officers would take note of the concerns about the height of the development, which was controlled by condition.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the landscape was valued by the local community.  He understood why they wished to protect it and considered there were grounds for refusal of the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

INFORMATIVES: