180-home housing scheme at Land North Of Carisbrook Road, Mitcheldean

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 180 homes, including affordable housing, with open space, landscaping and vehicular access.

“This is an application for outline planning permission for the construction of up to 180 dwellings (including affordable housing) with public open space, landscaping and vehicular access points. With the exception of the means of access to the site, all matters are reserved for future consideration.”

“The site measures 9.72 hectares. with a resulting in a gross density of development of 18.5 dwellings per hectare. However, the developable area excluding open space would result in a net density of 34 dwellings per hectare.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier outline scheme for up to 125 homes was refused in 2019 for countryside, landscape, heritage, archaeology, highways, ecology, drainage and infrastructure reasons.

“P1994/18/OUT: Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system and vehicular access point from Carisbrook Road and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved except for means of access – Refused - March 2019.”

“The application was refused for the following reasons:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended delegated permission because the housing and affordable housing benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts.

“In the context of paragraph 11d)ii, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and consequently, it is recommended that delegated permission be given to the Development Manager to grant permission subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure: 40% affordable housing consisting of: Social rent: 12, one bed flats; 3, one bed bungalows; 21, two bed…”

Officer report

Public concerns

Residents objected that the scheme would remove valuable agricultural land, strain services, worsen traffic and flooding, harm wildlife and change the village’s character.

“Loss of Agricultural Land • Land is grade 1, highly fertile, and used for crops and grazing; • Development would permanently remove valuable farmland, loss of food production; • Grade 1 land limited; • Food security.”

“Infrastructure and Services • Healthcare: Local GP surgery already overstretched; significant waiting times, hospital capacity; lack of dentists and opticians; no care facilities for older people; • Schools: Primary and secondary schools are full; new pupils would require travel outside the village; • Existing constraints would not allow services to expand; can funding be secured in advance of development? • Police and emergency services; No permanent presence, increasing…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and parish representative spoke against the scheme, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The committee refused permission

The committee refused the application, finding harm from countryside development, agricultural land loss, heritage impact and missing infrastructure contributions.

“The proposal was contrary to policies CSP1, CSP4 and CSP5 of the Core Strategy, policy AP1 of the Allocations Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework, in that it would result in a suburban form of development within a rural location on best and most versatile agricultural land. This was considered to adversely affect food security and to be out of character with the surroundings, resulting in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

“The proposed development failed to properly account for, and would cause unacceptable harm to, the significance of the designated heritage asset, namely the Grade I Listed Church of St Michael and All Angels. On balance, this harm was considered to outweigh the benefits of the application.”

Minutes