32 dwellings and associated works.

32 dwellings and associated works.

The Central Team Leader updated the Sub-Committee as follows:

§            an additional letter had been received from W. & J. Scaffolding Ltd. which re-iterated previous objections and provided further details about the number of people employed on the site or in association with the businesses operating from the site;

§            Welsh Water had not raised objections in principle and it was noted that recommended condition 4 would ensure that ‘No development shall commence until mains drainage is available on site’;

§            the Conservation Manager had advised that the existing conifer forming part of the frontage of the site was not considered to be of sufficient amenity value to warrant retention;

§            the Transportation Manager had advised that there was no technical requirement to provide street lighting as part of this application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Owen spoke on behalf of Holmer Parish Council, Mr. O’Neill had registered to speak on behalf of Holmer and District Residents’ Association but was not in attendance at the meeting, and Mr. Brockbank spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Member, expressed a number of views, including:

·             the comments of Holmer Parish Council were noted, particularly in relation to the number of people employed on or in association with the site;

·             the Head of Community and Economic Development had commented that from an economic development perspective the site should be retained and safeguarded for employment use;

·             the Forward Planning Manager had commented that the application ran contrary to current adopted Local Plan policy;

·             the site was not redundant and that it would be difficult for businesses to relocate and would have an adverse impact on the local economy;

·             the importance of tourism was noted and there was concern that this development would harm the rural feel of this area;

·             concerns about the lack of infrastructure and facilities in the locality;

·             concerns about the drainage arrangements;

·             the value of employment land such as this was noted, especially for small businesses; and

·             it was felt that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the material planning considerations in this instance.

In response, the Central Team Leader highlighted the principal local and national planning policy considerations.  In particular, it was reported that the removal of the employment use of the site would bring a benefit to the surrounding residential development by removing what were considered to be non-conforming uses.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox supported the views of the Local Member, particularly given the lack of suitable employment land on the north side of the river and the potential impact upon local businesses and the families that they supported.  He also felt that the proposed contributions did not outweigh the significant concerns that had been raised.

Councillor R.I. Matthews expressed his dismay that key information had not been available until this meeting.  He felt that the development should be resisted and that references to brownfield redevelopment were misleading given that the site was on the edge of high quality countryside.  He proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds of highway concerns, loss of employment land and the impact on the local community.

A number of Members felt that there was no justification for the loss of this employment land.

A few Members felt that the application should be supported and commented that the lack of alternative employment sites and facilities should not be overestimated given the proximity of the site to Roman Road.

In response to questions, the Central Team Leader advised that it was difficult to establish the exact number of people employed given the information available.

Councillor P.J. Edwards spoke against the loss of employment land and felt that the density of the proposal was too high given that the site was on the periphery of the settlement boundary and the importance of maintaining a transition between residential development and open countryside.

In response to comments made regarding perceived contradictions and anomalies in the report, the Head of Planning Services advised that a balance had to be achieved both in the weight given to the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Unitary Development Plan and in the weight given to the loss of employment land and the benefits to the locality of the proposal.  He added that the report attempted to provide as clear and as balanced a view as possible given the information available.  It was noted that the loss of existing employment land in terms of adopted policy was a potential reason for refusal. 

It was suggested that the application also be refused because the scale and density of the proposal would destroy the character of the area.  However, it was noted that this might not be defensible given the targets detailed in PPG3 and it was therefore proposed that the impact on the appearance of the countryside be given as a reason for refusal.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)     The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.  Loss of employment land;

2. Impact on the appearance of the countryside.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on the above resolution, the Development Control Manager noted that the Sub-Committee had thoroughly debated the issues and the reasons for refusal could be defended.  Therefore, the application would not be referred to the Head of Planning Services.]