Agenda item

To consider the withdrawal of a reason for refusal relating to outline planning application 11/4549N for up to 80 dwellings including access at land off Rope Lane, Shavington

The Board considered a report which sought to withdraw two of the four reasons for refusal relating to outline planning application 11/4549N for up to 80 dwellings including access land off Rope Lane, Shavington.

At its meeting on 21 March 2012 the Board had resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1          Whilst it is acknowledged that the Council does not currently have a five year housing land supply and that, accordingly, in the light of the advice contained in PPS3 it should consider favourably suitable planning applications for housing, the current proposal is not considered to be “suitable” as it would undermine the spatial vision for the area, wider policy objectives and the strategic function of the Green Gap in that it would result in the erosion of the physical gap between the built up areas of Shavington and Crewe. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies NE.2 and NE.4 of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and guidance contained within PPS3 and the Council’s Interim Housing Planning Policy On The Release Of Housing Land.

2          The proposed residential development, which is located within the Open Countryside and Green Gap, is considered to be an unsuitable location for development by virtue of the adverse impact that the proposals would have on the visual character of the landscape and the erosion of the physical gaps between built up areas.  The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies NE.2 and NE.4 of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and guidance contained within PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7.

3          The application is an outline application for new residential properties which are a sensitive end use and could be affected by any ground contamination present on site. No Phase I desk study and walkover survey have been submitted with the application and the applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate that the site is not constrained by contamination. The application therefore fails to comply with Policy BE.6 of the of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011 and guidance contained within PPS23.

4          Insufficient archaeological or historical information has been submitted to determine whether the hedgerow to be removed is of significance according to the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations, contrary to policies Policy NE.5 (Nature Conservation and Habitats) of the Crewe and Nantwich Replacement Local Plan 2011, Policy DP7 (Promote Environmental Quality) of the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 and the provisions of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

Since the meeting there had been ongoing negotiations in respect of the contaminated land issue and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers had now withdrawn their objection to the scheme, subject to appropriate conditions, including those relating to mitigation of the contaminated land impact.

The Applicant had lodged an Appeal against the refusal of the application and the Planning Inspectorate had determined that the application should be dealt with at a Hearing.  In the light of the Environmental Health Officers withdrawal of objection, it was considered that the contaminated land reason for refusal was no longer be sustainable at the Appeal.

The Applicant had now submitted an amended plan showing the proposed footpath along the site frontage to be relocated behind the hedgerow, within the site.  The plan also showed that the required visibility splays for the proposed access could be achieved without the need to remove the hedgerow.  With the exception of the removal of a small 10m section in the middle of the site frontage to accommodate the highway access itself, it was now proposed to retain the existing hedgerow.  In the light of the amended plan, the fact that the historic line of the hedgerow, which was considered to be important, and that as its line followed that of the road, it could still be traced in the landscape following the implementation of the development, it was not considered that a refusal on the grounds of Policy NE.5 could now be sutained.

RESOLVED:

That the reason for refusal in respect of both contaminated land the hedgerow be withdrawn and the Development Management and Building Control Manager be instructed not to contest these issue at the forthcoming appeal.