Agenda item

Application proposal: Outline planning application with all matters reserved aside from the access for the erection of up to 35 dwellings and associated works (resubmission of 17/04239/OUT)

The Area Lead Planner (North & West) presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the indicative layout plan and photographs of the site including the access.  He explained that the application was a resubmission of a previous application which had been withdrawn.  He advised that there had been minor revisions to the attenuation pond details and tree protection measures.  A meeting had also been held with Highways and it had been agreed that the hedgerows would be cut back to provide visibility.  He referred to the key considerations which were principle of development, housing need/local plan housing strategy, highways/parking, landscape, residential amenity, ecology and local infrastructure.  There were no updates to the report, however, he noted that Alder King had submitted a briefing note to all members prior to the Committee meeting.

Following the Officer’s presentation, Cllr. Val Keitch declared a personal interest in the item as a friend lived in a property adjacent to the site.

In response to member’s questions, the Area Lead Planner (North & West) advised that:

·         As the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing only limited weight could be attached to Policy SS2;

·         The Council’s Ecologist raised no objections to the application;

·         The applicant was suggesting additional planting to compensate for the loss of hedgerow;

·         He had weighed up all the issues including reduction and extent of the site and character of the village and concluded that the landscape impact was not severe enough to warrant refusal of the application;

·         Scale of development and cumulative impact was a material consideration;

·         If members considered there to be sufficient harm to warrant refusal of the scheme, they would need to set out in detail the harm the scheme was imposing;

·         County Education were not requesting a contribution.

A representative from Broadway Parish Council raised a number of concerns with regard to the application.  Points raised related to:

·         If the application were to be approved, housing in Broadway would increase by a third in ten years.  The increase was incompatible with SS2 which was intended to protect rural settlements from housing expansion on this scale;

·         The Health Centre capacity was counterbalanced by the primary schools inability to cope with the influx of extra pupils;

·         The need for Affordable Housing was not quantified;

·         The Parish Council had sent a long detailed letter opposing the application which was attached to the agenda.

The Committee was addressed by two members of the public in support of the application.  Comments raised included the following:

·         The application provided affordable housing;

·         The village had many people that wished to stay or return to the village;

·         The development would help support local facilities.

The Applicant’s Agent advised that public consultation had been undertaken on the proposal and that as a result of concerns raised the number of dwellings had been reduced from 46 to 35 with provision for 12 affordable dwellings and a greater mix of dwellings including bungalows.  The application introduced a new footpath link providing a connection to the village and traffic calming features in Pound Road.  The proposal was consistent with density of recent developments in the village and would help maintain vitality.  He advised that the development area had been reduced in order to maintain hedgerows and increase public open space.

Ward Member, Cllr. Linda Vijeh raised a number of concerns in relation to the application which included the following:

·         Objections had been raised by a number of local residents and the Parish Council;

·         Increased levels of traffic through the village;

·         The amount of development in Broadway in the last seven year had exceeded expectations;

·         A development of this size would be detrimental to the village;

·         Local people living in Broadway were not able to obtain school places in some year groups.

During the discussion, some members raised a number of concerns in relation to the following:

·         Adverse landscape harm

·         Ecological harm

·         Scale of development

·         Unsustainable location

·         Development contrary to various policies

·         Lack of school places

·         Lack of amenities

·         Cumulative impact

·         Loss of greenfield site

·         Development harmful to character of the village

The Planning Lead confirmed that the application was 2-starred under the Scheme of Delegation - referral of applications to the Regulation Committee for determination.  If the Committee was minded to refuse the application, the final determination would be made by the Regulation Committee.

The Senior Planning Advisor advised that if members were minded to refuse the application, they would need to set out in detail the harm the scheme was imposing.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to refer the application to the Regulation Committee with a recommendation that the application be refused for the reason:

·         significant adverse landscape impact

·         harm to the character and appearance of the village

·         contrary to policies SD1 and EQ2

On being put to the vote, the proposal to recommend refusal of the application was carried by 8 votes in favour and 2 against.