Agenda item

The North Area Manager presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal of the proposal. There had been a previous refusal for the development of two affordable dwellings in 2021 which was dismissed on appeal. Six trees on site are covered by a tree preservation order and the proposal would require the removal of three of these.  The Officer recognised there is a wider need for more affordable housing, and the development would meet some of that need however this would not outweigh the harm identified to the streetscene, Conservation Area, local biodiversity and the setting of the nearby listed building.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

•         Robert Hopkins – Applicant

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

Members discussed the following points:

•         A site had been identified by the Local Housing Authority to provide 20 houses over two phases, which would provide for the needs of the local community.

•         The trees on site were discussed and Members felt the preservation of these trees was important. Replacing these with saplings would be too much of a loss.

•         Members acknowledged the need for affordable housing but felt the proposed site was not the place for this development.

•         Alternative areas within the proposed site were questioned. From previous applications, development away from the trees had been proposed to help retain the majority of the mature trees but were refused and dismissed at appeal. It was concluded the site could not be developed on without having an impact on the trees. 

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.      The felling of three TPO protected trees along with likely pressure from future residents for the removal or lopping of remaining protected trees would result in immediate and likely longer term significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene, local biodiversity and the significance of the Conservation Area contrary to Policies GSP1-3, DMC13 and L1.

2.      The layout and the design of the development does not adequately reflect the established built form in the locality especially with regard to the parking area and wide gable massing. The proposal would therefore harm the valued character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area, the street scene and the setting of the adjacent listed Hardy House contrary to Policies GSP1-3 & DMC3, DMC5 and DMC7.

3.      The substantial harm to local biodiversity contrary to Policy GSP1-3 and DMC11 from the loss of semi natural green space and the three protected mature trees which provides habitat for birds, bats and other species. The compensatory planting elsewhere in the village will not mitigate the losses from this site

4.      Inaccurate BNG assessment which also does not follow appropriate mitigation hierarchy in achieving net gain.

5.      Inadequate information to demonstrate that off-site nutrient credits are available or have been secured to demonstrate nutrient neutrality.

6.      The development does not demonstrate that adequate vehicle and pedestrian visibility splays can be provided within land in ownership to ensure a safe access. Furthermore, no bin storage/dwell areas are proposed or secure cycle storage.

7.      The less than substantial harm caused to the setting of Hardy House and to the significance of the Conservation Area from the loss and damage to the protected trees and the poor layout/design of the scheme is not outweighed by the public benefit arising from the limited provision of affordable housing contrary to Policies DMC5, 7, 8 and the NPPF.

8.      Harm to the archaeological interest within the site in the absence of pre determination archaeological investigation works, alongside the harm which in itself (e.g. trenching) would likely cause harm to the root protection areas of the protected trees.