Six out of ten Ludlow bungalow applications refused and trees saved – for now – updated

I couldn’t attend the meeting of the South Planning Committee on 1 August. The committee considered three applications to build ten bungalows in Ludlow. Only one application for four bungalows was approved.

Rock Lane (17/01199/FUL)

Plans for four social housing bungalows were approved unanimously. I would have voted for this scheme. There are no material planning objections to the plans. The proposal brings our town four very much needed bungalows. It will remove garages that have become an eyesore and a focus for antisocial behaviour.

The formal reasons for approval of the application were:

That, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to: The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, subject to the following additional condition: Before the bungalows are first occupied the rear and side garden areas to the properties shall be laid out in accordance with details of the finished levels to those garden areas, of any patios/decking to be provided within them and of the means of enclosure to those garden areas, which have first been approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved levels, patios/decking and means of enclosure shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the occupants of the bungalows.  

Poyner Close (17/01372/FUL)

The proposal for a single bungalow for sale on the open market was rejected unanimously. This was absolutely the right decision. The formal reasons for rejection of the application were:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons: It is acknowledged that the proposed development would be in a sustainable location, contributing to the social and economic roles of sustainable development through the provision of a small bungalow, which is a type of accommodation for which there is an acknowledged need in Ludlow.  However, the proposal, by reason of the loss of trees and open space, would remove features that make significant contributions to the character and quality of the townscape and local amenity.  Consequently, the proposed development would not satisfy the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS6, CS8 and CS17, and SAMDev Plan Policies MD2 and MD12.

Sidney Road (17/01387/FUL)

This bid to build five social housing bungalows and fell another fine Norway Maple was contentious. Most of the committee voted against the proposal, with one member in favour and one abstaining. This was a difficult decision. If this had been a well thought through and well-designed scheme, it might have been approved. But Shropshire Housing Group has shunned local consultations. It ended up with a scheme that almost no one wanted. The housing group got the result it deserved. I suspect SHG will be back either with an improved application or by lodging an appeal to the planning inspectorate.

The formal reasons for rejection of the application were:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons: It is acknowledged that the proposed development would be in a sustainable location, contributing to the social and economic roles of sustainable development through the provision of small affordable bungalows, which is a type of accommodation for which there is an acknowledged need in Ludlow. However, the proposal, by reasons of the loss of the large Maple tree, which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, and reduction in the area of open space, would remove features that make significant contributions to the character and quality of the townscape and local amenity. In addition, the proposed footpath layout within the development, with the path linking Charlton Rise with Sidney Road passing very close to the front doors of the bungalows, is likely to be used by the public and would adversely affect the amenity and perception of security for the occupants of the bungalows. Consequently, the proposed development would not satisfy the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS6, CS8 and CS17, and SAMDev Plan Policies MD2 and MD12.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the Captcha *