Residential development comprising up to 20 dwellings, including up to 10 affordable dwellings with associated new access (via Tump Lane)and car parking arrangements for both existing and proposed and community facility.

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

(Residential development comprising up to 20 dwellings, including up to 10 affordable dwellings with associated new access (via Tump Lane)and car parking arrangements for both existing and proposed and community facility.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Cook, of Much Birch Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K James and Miss R Rigby, local residents, spoke in objection.  Ms A Shaw, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The settlement along Tump Lane was one of the largest groupings of houses in the rural area of his ward.

·        Whilst he supported the provision of additional affordable housing the proposed site was not suitable.

·        A development of 20 homes was significant in the context of a settlement of some 60 dwellings.

·        Tump Lane was a country road linking the A49 and A466.

·        Local amenities needed to be accessed at both Much Birch to the north and Wormelow to the south. The settlement was equidistant between them.

·        Bothe the primary school and the GP surgery were very good.

·        The proposal would provide a footpath, but not continuous to the north providing safe passage to Much Birch, but not to the south. It should be noted that the steiner academy to which many local parents sent their children was situated to the south. Pedestrian access was essential.

·        A request for a reduction in the 40mph speed limit to 30 mph at the junction with the A466 was under consideration.

·        He noted the findings of a 2016 traffic survey, adding that when school children were being dropped off or collected Tump Lane was extremely busy.  There was a risk of traffic on the A49 being backed up.

·        The level of concern about Tump Lane was such that a community group had been set up to liaise with Highways England.

·        Residents of the pilgrim hotel exited onto Tump Lane.  This distorted the traffic speed figures.

·        The new footpath proposed had some appeal to residents.  However, the proposed width was quite shallow and the road safety audit suggested that vegetation bordering the path may make pedestrians walk on the road creating a hazard.

·        The Committee had refused a previous application for 12 dwellings in March 2014 on the grounds of poor connectivity and landscape impact.

·        Parking was an issue.  Eleven vehicles currently parked in the garage area.  No replacement parking area had been identified.

·        Much Birch was on target to provide the homes required in the Core Strategy and was not resistant to development. The local community considered that the proposal was in the wrong location.

·        The proposal to provide a play area for children was welcome but the proposed site was crossed by telephone lines and was unsuitable.

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

·        There was considerable concern about the access. It was noted that Tump Lane was particularly narrow at the end where it joined the A49. The appeal decision in 2014 had concluded that development would present a harm to highway safety.

·        It was noted that the scheme would provide additional footpath that would benefit existing residents as well as new ones.

·        The development was backland development uncharacteristic of the settlement.

·        There were many positive aspects to the development.  However, it appeared that the question of highway safety outweighed the potential benefits.

·        It was noted that a 7.5 tonne weight restriction could be imposed.

·        Some concern was expressed about the capacity of the school and GP surgery to cope with additional demand.

The Transportation Manager commented that it was not an easy situation and there were constraints.  However, whilst further detailed work was required he considered that a good scheme could be delivered that would benefit existing residents as well as new residents.

The Lead Development Manager commented that further work would be undertaken prior to any development.  The decision was a finely balanced one.  The concept was excellent providing more affordable housing as a percentage of the development than policy required. The proposal would achieve connectivity to the A49.  The provision of the footpath and passing bays would be an improvement on the current situation and therefore represent a significant benefit.  The section 106 agreement would also enable a contribution to be made to school capacity if required.  The access to the A49 via Tump Lane had been a significant aspect of the appeal decision in March 2014 rejecting development. The application before the Committee this time did offer improvements.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that there were benefits associated with the type of development proposed. However, the access was not suitable.

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds of highway safety and poor connectivity and that it was therefore contrary to policies MT1 and SS4.

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 Committee’s view that the proposal was detrimental to highway safety, there was poor connectivity and it was therefore contrary to policies MT1 and SS4.

(The meeting adjourned between 12:30 to 12:40.)