Agenda item

Members had driven past and observed the site on the previous day.

The report was introduced by the Planning Officer, and was recommended for refusal as set out in the report.   Planning Permission had previously been granted for a hotel on the site but the new application was for open market housing and therefore required a new application.

Correspondence has been received after the completion of the report as follows:

One letter in support had been received from the head of Bamford Primary school

• Support building of family homes on the site.
• School roll is in decline with unused capacity. The school recently reduced the number of classes from four to three.
• Pleased that the plans include a play area.
• Concern that the plans would appeal to the retiree market and not families – or be used for holiday lets. A scheme similar to the new estate at Bradwell would have been more likely to bring families to the local area or cater for local need.

One letter objects

• The site is particularly well suited to providing some affordable housing the location is highly appropriate i.e. close to facilities and public transport.

An email had been received from the Clerk to Bamford Parish Council stating that a phone call had been received from the applicant enquiring what projects the PC might want to be funded. The answer was that there are several possibilities but that each was only discussed briefly.

New information from the applicant

Two letters had been received from the applicant’s planning agent outlining the case for the proposed development and rebutting assessment and conclusions made in the committee report.

A letter from the applicant stated:

• The Parish Council would shortly purchase a plot of land off Joan Lane/ Brentford Close for use as allotments.
• This site had been considered suitable for affordable housing by the PDNPA and therefore could be used for affordable homes and allotments.
• The applicant offered a financial contribution of £100,000 towards affordable homes following the sale of the first 10 apartments on the development.

A further email from the applicant stating:

• If the financial contribution was not able to be immediately used for affordable homes then it could be retained for future use in Bamford or elsewhere.
• OR the contribution could be used towards other community projects such as
  • Off-street car park
  • Provision of a multi use games area.
  • Renovations of the Anglers Arms community pub.

The applicant’s offer of a financial contribution would need to be secured by a S106 legal agreement. This can only be sought where the offer was necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, was directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The offer would not overcome the key concern that there was no justification for a major housing development on the site or that the development would harm landscape character.

The application proposed 100% market housing which was not supported by a viability assessment to test if the development could provide affordable housing on site or to justify the proposed financial contribution.

The late correspondence did not change the recommendation to refuse the application.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Cllr Ginny Priestley – On behalf of Bamford with Thornhill Parish Council – objector

·         Cllr Charlotte Farrell – Ward Councillor – Objector

·         Cllr Peter O’Brien – District Councillor

·         Ms Caroline McIntyre – Planning Consultant

·         Mr Matthew Hinckley – Owner

Members requested clarification on the suitability of the site for affordable housing as Officers  had assessed the site as being outside the settlement of Bamford.  DMH6 policy allows housing in line with Core Strategy policy HC1 on land that had been previously developed and in line with conditions.

Members considered the site to have a close relationship to Bamford and that it was in a sustainable location.  Owing to the pressing need for affordable homes in the Hope Valley, Members asked that the applicant be approached regarding the development of affordable housing on the site.

A motion to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

A recommendation to amend reason 1 for refusal removing DS1 from the policies listed was put forward by Members and accepted by the mover and seconder of the motion.

A motion to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation and subject to the change in reason 1 was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The development would not be in the public interest and exceptional circumstances do not exist to justify the proposed major housing development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, GSP2 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The development does not address local need for affordable housing contrary to policies HC1, DMH6 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The scale, design and character of the development would harm valued landscape character, as identified in the Landscape Strategy and Action Plan. The development is therefore contrary to policies L1, DMC1, DMC3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    Insufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the development upon protected species and their habitat in and around the site contrary to policies L2, DMC11 and DMC12 and the National Planning Policy Framework