Issue - meetings

That Planning Permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses were detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since preparation of the report were set out in the late observations.

The officer drew attention to the main issues for consideration set out in paragraph 1.02 of the report and clarified the reasons for recommending refusal of the application.  In the late observations, he highlighted the response to the representations by the Ramblers Association which explained why this was not considered to be an additional ground for refusal.

Councillor Peers moved the officer recommendation for refusal and this was duly seconded.

Mrs. C. Huber spoke against the application on the following grounds: widespread local disapproval against the application; growth in the village had already well exceeded the UDP target which meant that the local infrastructure was struggling to keep pace and would not be able to support further development of this scale; the site being in open countryside and outside the settlement boundary; non-compliance with local and national policies; impact on quality of life and harm to the cohesiveness of the community as demonstrated by other local developments; policy requirements on the overdevelopment of the village and no protection against displaced housing from Cheshire given the border position; concerns about speculative housing developments, the sustainability of the rate of recent new house building and long-term capacity of developers; reference to the statement by Lesley Griffiths AM that the lack of housing land supply should not justify any detrimental impact on local communities.

In support of refusal, Councillor Peers commended the way in which local representations had been made and he agreed with the findings of the report, citing the location outside the settlement boundary and non-compliance with local and national policies as key factors.  He noted from the site visit that the village was over-developed, as confirmed by the growth figures, and said that the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five year land supply should not be exploited by developers where there was no regard for local impact.  He felt this was an uncontrolled development and that the LDP process was the mechanism by which candidates sites could be put forward.

Councillor Butler spoke in support of the officer’s reasons for recommending refusal and of the comments by those who had spoken.  He highlighted the need for effective planning for the future to avoid negative impact on communities and local infrastructure.

As the Local Members, Councillors Hinds and Williams spoke against the application on the following grounds: size of the development and siting outside the settlement boundary in open countryside; mix of housing; drainage and environment; cohesiveness of the community and principles of sustainable development; increased pressure on busy local roads, particularly on Chester Road; capacity of the infrastructure to cope with further growth of the village due to current demand for amenities such as schools,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161