Erection of seven bungalows for social housing.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He advised the meeting of an amendment to condition No. 7 and indicated that the wording “no material variation will be made from the approved Tree Protection Plan without the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority” should be deleted.  This was because the correct route to seek any such adjustments would be through either a variation of condition planning application, or a request for a non-material amendment following the granting of planning permission.  He explained that the application had been amended during the consideration of the proposals and there had been a reduction from seven to five affordable dwellings, which would now provide five one-bed bungalows.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and had noted the existing trees on site, the locations of residential properties and the highway network in the locality and had assessed the impact of a proposal on the surrounding area. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Councillor G Ginger, representing Ludlow Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Tracey Huffer, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  She then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Trees were in good health and a significant feature of the area;

·         She acknowledge the need for social housing but this proposal would be to the detriment of the area and would lead to a loss of green space;

·         The footpath which was used daily ran concurrently in front of the bins; and

·         Residents were not happy with the potential detrimental impact on the local area.

Mr P Oliver, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and considered the submitted plans.  Members acknowledged the need for this type of housing but expressed concerns relating to the number of bedrooms per dwelling, lack of parking provision for carers, security and the perception of fear and crime, drainage and the loss of green/open space.   In response to concerns regarding drainage, the Principal Planner explained that the drainage team had assessed the proposal and had raised no technical concerns that could not be addressed by appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

It is acknowledged that the proposed development would be in a sustainable location, contributing to the social and economic roles of sustainable development through the provision of small affordable bungalows, which is a type of accommodation for which there is an acknowledged need in Ludlow.  However, the proposal, by reasons of the loss of the large Maple tree, which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, and reduction in the area of open space, would remove features that make significant contributions to the character and quality of the townscape and local amenity.  In addition, the proposed footpath layout within the development, with the path linking Charlton Rise with Sidney Road passing very close to the front doors of the bungalows, is likely to be used by the public and would adversely affect the amenity and perception of security for the occupants of the bungalows.  Consequently, the proposed development would not satisfy the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS6, CS8 and CS17, and SAMDev Plan Policies MD2 and MD12.