Proposed development of two residential dwellings including new vehicular access off the highway.

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

(Proposed development of two residential dwellings including new vehicular access off the highway.)

(Councillor James was not present during the whole consideration of this application and therefore did not vote on it.) 

The Senior 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, Mrs S Matthews of Llangarron Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr M Harding, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J White, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The application had received representations from 30 objectors and 44 supporters.  Most of the supporters did not live in Llangarron village; the objectors did.

·        Llangarron was not a nucleated village.  This had a bearing on the interpretation of policy RA2 as to whether proposed development was ‘within or adjacent to the main built up settlement’. 

·        The draft NDP, whilst carrying limited weight, had not included the site within the settlement boundaries.  The AECOM report which would inform the NDP had not included the site.  Llangarron village was surrounded by clumps of sporadic growth.  Defining these as part of the main built up settlement would destroy the character of the settlement. 

·        Those opposing the application considered that the site did not fall within a reasonable interpretation of ‘within and adjacent to the main built up area’. 

·        She questioned the report at paragraph 1 which stated that the site had a degree of residential use due to the growing of fruit and vegetables, remarking on the potential conflict with policies designed to limit development in open countryside.

·        The parish council objected to the application.  They considered the site to be outside the main built up area and therefore policy RA3, to which the proposal was contrary, should apply.  The Parish Council also argued that if it was considered the proposal was compliant with policy RA2 in principle it did not meet the requirements of that policy.

·        As a parish Llangarron has met its minimum housing target, and had a 20% margin on top.   

·        Objectors considered the application did not contribute to, and was not essential to, the social wellbeing of the village. It was not a high quality sustainable scheme and failed to make a positive contribution to the landscape setting.  It was also considered contrary to policies LD1 and SS6 by failing to conserve and enhance those environmental assets that contribute to the county’s distinctiveness in particular its settlement pattern, and the design did not reflect the local character. 

·        The dwellings were specifically not designed as starter homes or homes for young families and therefore did not add to the housing mix locally in a way that would reflect housing need. 

·        The applicant had responded to some of the concerns by reducing some of the massing of the building and incorporating stone.  Supporters of the application considered it represented sustainable and well designed growth for the village.

·        The site was in an elevated position visible from the other side of the village. Supporters said that it would be screened when the trees were in leaf, objectors believed that there would be a significant landscape impact contrary to policy LD1.

·        Initial concerns raised by the ecologist due to the proximity of the outfall fields to the Garron Brook had been mitigated by redesigning the drainage fields to achieve the required 50m buffer.  However, concerns of local residents about the flooding of the Garron were well founded and it was appropriate to pay close attention to this element of the design to ensure that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the site would not contribute to phosphate levels in the Garron and the Lower Wye SAC.  It was also important to be satisfied that any properties on the site were not going to be subject to flooding from either the brook or from surface water.  The Garron had flooded already this year and on occasions last year making the road impassable at the bridge.  Building new dwellings where there is a risk of flooding, or where it might result in an increase of risk elsewhere would be contrary to SD3 of the core strategy.

·        The site was not in the flood plain and it was stated that there was no danger of any pollution from the personal treatment packages proposed.  Members could from a judgement about the landfall and proximity of the brook.

·        The parish council had raised policy MT1 as a reason for refusal given the narrowness of the lane and the lack of passing places.  Supporters did not feel that the cumulative impact would be severe as also maintained by the Transportation Manager.  There was no realistic alternative means of travel.  The roads were narrow and dangerous to cycle, there was no pedestrian refuge and the absence of a convenient bus service meant reliance on the car which was arguably not sustainable.

·        There was a strong difference of opinion about the value of the hedgerow that was to be removed and whether or not the hedgerow regulations should apply. It was noted that there was a proposed scheme for planting to offset the loss. Sit was questioned if this this was a net environmental gain.  It was argued that the loss of this feature would impact on the character of the area and represent a loss of ecology contrary to policy LD2.

·        In conclusion the application raised the question of the interpretation of the phrase within policy RA2 ‘within or adjacent to the main built up settlement’, invited consideration of the risk of both fluvial and pluvial flooding, the landscape impact and impact on the local road network and balanced against that the delivery of new houses to meet the housing land supply.

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

·        There appeared to be several grounds of concern.  The proposal appeared to be contrary to many policies.

·        Concern was expressed about the possibility of flooding.

·        Established hedgerows were effective in reducing water flow.  The removal of 45m of hedgerow was therefore of concern, notwithstanding the claim that there would be an ecological net gain.  There should be greater emphasis on protecting the County’s ecological heritage.

·        There was a question as to whether the proposal complied with policy RA2 or was really development in the open countryside.

·        There had been no objections from the statutory consultees.

·        Settlements across the county accommodated a range of housing styles within them.

·        Access to many properties in the county was via narrow lanes.

·        The settlement completely lacked facilities.  It was car dependent and did not represent sustainable development.

·        The topography of the site meant that works would have an adverse impact on the River Wye catchment discharging materials into it.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal.

The Development Manager commented that there were aspects of the application that were matters of judgement.   Llangarron was designated as a settlement suitable for development within the Core Strategy.   He was therefore cautious about advancing an argument that development in the village was inherently unsustainable.  In addition there was no technical objection to the application on the grounds of flooding and surface water drainage.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She again highlighted the question as to whether the application site, although not an isolated dwelling, could be considered to be within and adjacent to the main built up settlement of Llangarron. 

In further discussion the Development Manager acknowledged that Llangarron Parish had exceeded its minimum housing target and, although he did not consider it a strong argument, it might therefore be contended that in the context of that growth further development might have a greater adverse impact that might be unsustainable and contrary to promoting reduced car use.

Councillor Fagan proposed and Councillor Watson seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies RA2, RA3, LD1, LD2, LD3, SS4, SS6 and SS7.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies RA2, RA3, LD1, LD2, LD3, SS4, SS6 and SS7.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.02 and 11.15.)