This revised proposal is for the residential development of 54 dwellings for J R M Property Development Ltd.

Ward: Kington Town

Residential development for 54 dwellings, with car parking spaces, new access road, landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a further letter of objection had been circulated to Sub-Committee Members individually.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Bradbury spoke on behalf of Kington Town Council, Mr. Lewis had registered to speak against the application but was unable to attend the meeting, and Mr. Smith spoke in support of the application.

Councillor T.M. James, the Local Ward Member, commented that this application was virtually the same as that previously refused (DCNW2005/3082/F), albeit with four less dwellings resulting in a density of 50 dwellings per hectare.  He noted that this density was at the top end of that suggested in PPG3 – Housing and that the suitability or otherwise of the particular site was critical issue.  He commented that there was ‘universal opposition’ in the local community.   It was noted that Kington was a small market town, a low income area, had a high percentage of rentable accommodation and had problems with traffic congestion and lack of public transport infrastructure.  He added that the proposed contribution towards education facilities at Kington Primary School would not deal with the problem of capacity on this small site and, given that it already had less than the statutory level of play and recreation space available, there was no room for further expansion.  In terms of the proposed contribution of £25,000 towards the public open space, Crooked Well Meadow, Councillor James noted that this would not even be enough to re-route power cables which hindered the further development of that area.  He felt that the application was out of all scale with the local community and should be refused in line with the grounds given in the refusal of the previous application.

A number of Members felt that the density model was out of keeping with the character of the historic towns and was unsustainable.  Comments were also made about the level of contributions proposed and the need for adequate play space near to the site.

The Development Control Manager responded to the concerns and questions raised by Members.  He advised that Policy H15 of the UDP included a guideline density of at least 50 dwellings per hectare for town centre and adjacent sites.  He commented that, in terms of density and housing land supply, the planning authority was not meeting housing needs; it was noted that the alternative was build on Greenfield sites which could be even more challenging.  Given these policy considerations, he felt that refusal on the grounds of density could be difficult to defend.  He acknowledged Members’ comments about contributions to educational facilities but emphasised that the level and type of contributions proposed had been guided by the advice of Children’s Services.  On the issue of play space, he noted that the Parks and Countryside department was working with the playground committee to identify funding in order to realise the development of the public open space for the benefit of the whole community.  On highway safety, he advised that the production of the Traffic Assessment meant that this element could also be difficult to defend.  Regarding the character of the area, he advised that the general design approach, whilst it could be improved, was not considered inappropriate for this location.  He also emphasised the difficulty in meeting affordable housing demand in the County.

Councillor Mrs. L.O. Barnett noted the difficulties of providing adequate housing but felt that this should not excuse poor development.  She felt that this proposal would lead to overcrowding which would be out of character with the area. 

Councillor K.G. Grumbley noted the direction of transportation policy towards modal shift but questioned whether this could be achieved in this area.  He felt that the road infrastructure was not adequate for the level of development being proposed.

In response to a question from Councillor W.L.S. Bowen, the Development Control Manager advised that the potential for introducing energy saving measures into the scheme had been explored but it was difficult to deliver on tight margins.  He added that it would be difficult to insist on such initiatives unless they were included in Building Regulations.

Councillor James commented that Kington had a similar population level to Colwall and it was unlikely that a development of this density would be promoted there.  He also commented on the specific highway problems in the town.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)   The Northern 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 Development Control Manager) provided that the Development Control Manager does not refer the application to the Planning Committee.

1.      The density of the proposed development is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site that would be out of character with the general density of the surrounding area.  As such the proposal conflicts with policies A1, A23 and A24 of the Leominster District Local Plan and Policy H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Plan (deposit draft).

2.  The proposed development, by virtue of the density of development would put unnecessary strain on the existing highway network to the detriment of highway safety for highway users and pedestrians in conflict with Policy A70 of the Leominster District Local Plan.

3.  The proposed development does not include public open space to the standard required by Policy H19 of the Unitary Development Plan (Revised deposit Draft) and Policies A64 and A65 of the Leominster District Local Plan. The proposed off site provision is not considered satisfactory to meet this need.

(ii)    If the Development Control Manager 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 this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would refer the application to the Planning Committee.]