Outline planning application for the erection of up to 120 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from the A44. All matters reserved except for means of access.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Clare Davies left the committee to act as the local Ward member for the application below.

The principal planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda, as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Lloyd spoke on behalf of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, Ms Churchill spoke on behalf of Avenbury Parish Council, Mr Whitehorn, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr White, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward members (Bromyard West and Bishops Frome and Cradley) spoke on the application.

The local ward member for Bromyard West explained that there were significant highway safety concerns with the proposed development. The local community recognised the need for new houses but that should not be at the expense of the safety of local residents. Under the national planning policy framework (NPPF) and the local plan cycling facilities were an essential element of new developments but the application did not provide adequate plans for the safety of cyclists accessing the proposed site. The footway to the site was unsafe with a narrow width along a fast narrow road. Earlier applications for the proposed development had featured a pedestrian walkway to the site along the road and had been dismissed as unsafe; the current  application had moved the footpath to the other side of the road with no discernible improvements to the safety of pedestrians. There were also ecological issues with the proposal including the removal of hedgerow. The plans had not been presented to the town council in a public forum which would have offered the opportunity to the applicant to improve the application using local knowledge. The committee was urged to refuse the application based on the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) policy BY1 and core strategy policy MT1 due to highway safety.

The local ward member for Bishops Frome and Cradley explained that there was a need for more houses but this must be under the right circumstances. Access to the site was a principal concern and the safety of local residents accessing the site on bicycle or by foot. The width of the A44 was not felt to be sufficient for two HGVs to pass therefore posed a significant risk to cyclists and pedestrians accessing the site. The road would be widened around the proposed Junction but the layout did not take account of cycling. Access to the primary school and the safety of children was of concern and it was suggested that a change to the location of the pedestrian access would shorten the walk along the A44 from the site. Cycling facilities in the form of cycle parking, would be provided on site but there was a fundamental flaw as there was no provision to improve the safety of cyclists to the site along the A44. Highway safety was also a concern for pedestrian using the pavement along Panniers Lane which was not of a sufficient width.

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the following principal points were raised:

- there were significant highway safety concerns regarding cyclist and pedestrian access to the site.
- there was no adequate provision for safe cycling in the application.
- the application did not adequately promote active travel to the site due to the highway safety concerns posed to pedestrians and cyclists accessing the proposed development.
- the width of the road posed a safety risk and the lack of adequate pedestrian and cycling infrastructure had an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
- there was an unacceptable safety risk to people with disabilities and families with young children using the pedestrian access to the site.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

A motion that the application be refused due to highway safety concerns relating to access to the site of cyclists and pedestrians, contrary to core strategy policy MT1 and NPPF paragraphs 106, 110, 111 and 112 was proposed by Councillor Peter Hamblin and seconded by Councillor Richard Thomas. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED – that

The application be refused due to highway safety concerns relating to access to the site of cyclists and pedestrians, contrary to core strategy policy MT1 and NPPF paragraphs 106, 110, 111 and 112.

There was an adjournment at 11:10 a.m.; the meeting reconvened at 11:27 a.m.

Councillor Clare Davies resumed her seat on the committee.