To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee by the Head of Planning Services because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse it, contrary to the Council's Planning Policies and officer recommendations.

Ward: Kington Town

The Development Control Manager said that the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse the application and that it had been referred to the Planning Committee because this view was contrary to a number of the Council’s Planning policies and Officer advice.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Bradbury of Kington Town Council and Mr. Lewis, an objector, spoke against the application, and Mr. Orr the agent acting on behalf of the applicant 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) and although there were four less dwellings there would still be a density of 50 dwellings per hectare.  He noted that this density was at the upper end of that suggested in PPG3 – Housing and that the suitability or otherwise of the site was critical issue.  He commented that there was ‘universal opposition’ in the local community.   He pointed out 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 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.

Councillor BF Ashton pointed out that although he was a strong supporter of the council’s Planning policies, in this case he felt that the policies on the Unitary Development Plan were wrong.  His view was that a minimum of 50 dwellings per hectare for a small market town was inappropriate and that a range of 30 – 50 dwellings, with 50 being the maximum would be more in keeping.  He was concerned at a number of issues about the application and in particular those of ecology where Officers advice appeared to have been ignored and the Applicant had started clearing vegetation from the site without first obtaining the necessary consent.  He felt that provision for car-parking and play areas was inadequate and that there were a number of traffic issues in that the development would put considerable pressure on the existing narrow roads leading to the site. A contribution to open space elsewhere in the town was not appropriate and instead the Applicant should make proper provision within the site. Councillor Mrs PA Andrews had concerns about the proposed development which included housing designs which were basic and unappealing in an area adjoining the Kington Conservation Area.  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 although not terribly good, was considered to be acceptable for this location.  He also emphasised the difficulty in meeting affordable housing demand in the County.

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 and notwithstanding the Transportation Managers advice, felt that the scheme would have an adverse impact upon the narrow road network in and around the site and the adjoining Conservation Area.  Having considered all the facts in respect of the application, the Committee decided that it could not be supported.

RESOLVED:

That    the application be refused on the following grounds and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Development Control Manager.

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.

4.      The design of the buildings was not appropriate or in keeping with other developments.