Outline application for mixed residential development and formation of a vehicular and pedestrian access.

With reference to Minute No. 11, the Principal Planner introduced the application.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, access and amended layout.

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Mr T Hockenhull, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Additional water on top of existing watercourses would lead to problems downstream;

·         No substantial changes or concrete proposals had been made to deal with the problems and dangers associated with the Woodbatch / Kerry Lane junction;

·         No account had been taken of garden ponds and the presence of Great Crested Newts and the two roosts nearby; and

·         He urged refusal.

Councillor Mrs A-M Jackson, representing Bishop’s Castle Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 14 and 17 of the NPPF.  The presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply because when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole the adverse impacts of granting approval would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits;

·         The community had rejected sites on this side of town for housing development during the rigorous SAMDev consultation because of access problems to the town’s hinterland;

·         New housing need in Bishop’s Castle was for affordable housing for local young people and families.  This was one of the most frequently quoted requirements in a recent survey undertake to update the Town Plan.  The retention of young people in the area would help the town to thrive and this proposal would generate only two affordable homes; 

·         To exit the development traffic had to use Kerry Lane, which was only one-vehicle width in places, with five junctions within a 440 m stretch and much of its length had no pavement.  This Lane was already unsuitable for existing residents and businesses and was the only means of access for existing dwellings, a primary school, Sure Start facility, two sheltered accommodation facilities, nursing home, fire station, church hall, bowls club, and a pub and brewery; and

·         Further applications would follow if this one was granted, which would exacerbate the already significant problems that existed on Kerry Lane.

Mr S Taylor, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Officer’s report confirmed that the concerns had been satisfactorily addressed;

·         Drainage would be improved; and

·         The junction arrangements had been considered to be acceptable and would be beneficial to the area.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Charlotte Barnes, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Concerns with regard to the inability of the road network to cope with the existing traffic.  More traffic would exacerbate existing problems, widening Woodbatch Road would not make any difference, there were places where two cars could not pass and it would be impossible to improve the access; and

·         A further affordable housing application had not yet been submitted so could not be taken into account; and

·         The dwellings, if built, would not be affordable for local people.

In response to comments and questions from speakers and Members, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) explained that the impact of the nine dwellings on Woodbatch Road had been assessed and a judgement had been made that the impact of a further nine houses, along with the widening of Woodbatch Road, would be minimal.  A meeting had taken place with the Town Council and the local Ward Member and proposals had been put forward and options had been discussed.  The applicant had agreed to a financial contribution towards any improvements and these improvements would be made in consultation with the local Ward Member and the Town Council. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers and it was unanimously

RESOLVED:

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

·         The Bishop’s Castle community had overwhelmingly rejected sites on this side of the town for housing development during a rigorous SAMDev consultation exercise because of access problems to the town’s hinterland.  Other more appropriate sites had been identified;

·         A need for affordable housing had been identified in the area and the contribution of this application to the affordable housing stock would be minimal; and

·         This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems that exist along Kerry Lane.  To exit the proposed development site and the town, traffic would have to use Kerry Lane, which, in places is a single track road, has no footpath in places, has five junctions within close proximity, and is already unsuitable for existing residents and businesses. The deficiencies in the local road network would not achieve a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of the area and the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy policy CS6 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

(Councillor William Parr left the meeting during consideration of the above item, did not vote and did not return to the meeting.)

(The meeting adjourned at 3.56 pm and reconvened at 4.03 pm.)