Proposed outline application with all matters, save access, reserved for the residential development of 20 open market homes and 10 affordable homes.

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

(Proposed outline application with all matters, save access, reserved for the residential development of 20 open market homes and 10 affordable homes.)

The Principal 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 for virtual meetings the following spoke at the meeting as virtual attendees:  Mr P Kyles of Dilwyn Parish Council, who spoke in support of the scheme, Mr N Jones, a local resident, speaking in objection; and Mr J Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, speaking in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Mike Jones, spoke on the application.  In summary, he emphasised the Parish Council’s support for the scheme and the potential benefits for the local community.  These included additional customers for local services, affordable housing and enhanced conservation.  Heritage England had considered the harm to the castle mound to be less than substantial and the application proposed to develop the tourist potential of the site. Concerns had been expressed about flooding but he did not consider these to be justified.  The applicant had submitted a planning application for the development of a wetland which would mitigate any phosphate discharge.  The Parish Council had worked with the developer to provide a positive development for Dilwyn.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Lead Development Manager re-emphasised the proposed grounds for refusal highlighting the objection by Welsh Water.  He acknowledged the potential benefits to the village of a larger housing scheme as proposed as this would deliver affordable housing.  However, the current application before the Committee was not suitable.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated the Parish Council’s support for the application and the benefits of the development for Dilwyn.

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

1.         The site lies within the catchment of the River Lugg Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which comprises part of the River Wye SAC, and triggers the requirement for a Habitat Regulations Assessment.  Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) there is a requirement to establish beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Wye SAC (Lugg sub catchment) which is currently failing its water quality targets.  The proposal therefore fails to meet the requirements of policies LD2, SD3 and SD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 170e)), together with the provisions set out in The Conservation and Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).  This provides a clear reason to refuse planning permission under paragraph 11 d) i of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         Development of the site would result in less than substantial harm (quantified as being at a high degree within this category) to the significance of designated heritage assets; namely a Scheduled Monument (Castle Mound) and the setting of the Dilwyn Conservation Area.  This is contrary to policies SS6 and LD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy.  Furthermore, the harm is considered sufficient to outweigh the public benefits, taking into account the weight to be afforded to the assets’ conservation as set out in Chapter 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Consequently, this provides a clear reason to refuse planning permission under paragraph 11 d) i and also when having regard to all other considerations (as required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)), the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits such that permission should be refused under paragraph 11 d) ii as well.

3.         On the basis of the information submitted it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not unacceptably sterilise mineral reserves.  This is contrary to policy M5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The proposal does not include necessary improvements to facilitate pedestrian connectivity to local services and public transport.  As such the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of policies SS4 and MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.         A legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) has not been completed. As such, there is no legal mechanism by which the Local Planning Authority can properly secure the delivery, construction and occupation of the proposed affordable dwellings and secure financial contributions towards required community infrastructure. These measures are necessary to make the development acceptable. The absence of an agreement is in conflict with policies SC1, H1 and ID1 Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031, the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (April 2008) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Informative:

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 have been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.