30 homes with open space at Ashfurlong Nurseries Main Street, Pinvin

What was proposed

The application proposed 30 homes, including 40% affordable housing, with parking, landscaping and open space.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 30 residential dwellings, including 40% affordable homes with associated parking and landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 2.37-hectare agricultural site lies on Pinvin’s western edge, beside Ashfurlong Drive, hedgerows, public rights of way and existing homes.

“The site is situated along the western edge of the village of Pinvin, a Category 2 village located to the north of Pershore. The site covers 2.37 hectares and is currently in agricultural use. The site is mostly flat, gently sloping from west to east.”

“The northern, western, and southern boundaries of the site are defined by existing hedgerows and tree planting. PROW 517(C) and 518(C) run along the outer edge of the northern boundary, which connects to PROW 529 (C) also outside the site boundary along the western edge. Four detached properties back onto a portion of the eastern boundary which are also accessed from Ashfurlong Drive.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions allowed the removal of barns and their replacement with four detached dwellings and garages.

“17/00457/FUL. Amendment to planning permission W/15/03106/PN. Removal of barns and replacement with 4no detached dwellings with integral and 2no detached garages. Ashfurlong Nurseries, Main Street, Pinvin. Approval. May 22 nd , 2017”

“17/01723/FUL. Removal of barns and replacement with 4no detached dwellings with integral and 2no detached garages (minor amendment to planning application no W/15/03106/PN. Ashfurlong Nurseries, Main Street, Pinvin. Approval. November 28 th , 2017”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing and biodiversity benefits outweighed limited, localised landscape harm, subject to obligations and conditions.

“In terms of harms, whilst there would be a degree of landscape harm by virtue of developing an undeveloped greenfield site, the harm would be very limited and localised. Limited weight is attached to the landscape harm.”

“RECOMMENDATION To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the obligations and planning conditions, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the obligations and planning conditions as required by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure: Obligations: Education • Early Years - £108,035”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, drainage, flooding, water, housing, education and archaeology consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, obligations or further details.

“County Highways Authority: No objections subject to recommended conditions and obligations.”

“WCC Education: No objections subject to recommended financial obligations.”

Officer report

Objections and comments

Twenty-seven objections and three neutral communications were received, raising concerns about access, drainage, infrastructure, overdevelopment, biodiversity and agricultural land.

“Overdevelopment in Pinvin. • Harmful impact on residential amenity. • The site is outside of the development boundary. • There is insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the development. • Highway safety concerns. • Concerns regarding foul drainage capacity. • Flood risk and drainage concerns. • Impact on biodiversity. • Brownfield sites should be developed first. • Loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative and a resident spoke against approval, while an agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned drainage, highway width, adoption, visibility, traffic, construction access, housing mix, agricultural land and the effect of further development.

“The Local Member, Councillor E B Tucker, asked a question regarding drainage and the drainage plan as there was potential for further development along that route and whether there was a drainage plan for the site that was approved at appeal at the Crossroads. The Planning Officer advised that if there was future development it would be assessed on its own merits.”

“Councillor C G J Tucker restricted his comments to the drainage and was interested to learn from the applicant that they do propose to put forward the drainage for adoption by Severn Trent. He had been on the site visit and could see the direction in which the drainage would go and where the land rose. Councillor Tucker stated that he had never seen such a large ‘bomb crater’. He could not see how this could be safe and would have to be securely fenced off.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission, subject to completing a legal agreement securing obligations and planning conditions.

“Councillor A I Hardman stated that we could only deal with what was in front of us and that the Local Lead Flood Authority were happy, highway safety would be improved with the new footpath and Highways had given their clear direction. He therefore proposed approval in line with the officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Councillor E A Sims.”

“To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the obligations and planning conditions, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the obligations and planning conditions as required by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure:”

Minutes

Main requirements

The decision included affordable housing, open space, financial contributions, biodiversity measures, drainage controls and highway improvements.

“40% affordable housing (12 dwellings) comprised of 67% Social Rent and 33% Shared Ownership…”

“Open space to be provided onsite to include equipped play space.”

Minutes