Controversial plans to build 101 new homes in the north of Carlisle have been refused.
Members of Cumberland Council’s planning committee discussed a number of proposed major housing developments, including the planning application for Stanwix, at a packed meeting the Civic Centre in the city on Wednesday.
Castles and Coasts had hoped to build the new, largely affordable, homes on land to the east of Lansdowne Close.
The proposals have been under consideration since they were first put forward to the former city council two years ago – with amendments being made to the original application along the way.
It was proposed that, out of the 101 units, 86 were designated as affordable homes but the number of objections to the development were more than 1,000.
However, despite its potential to address Carlisle’s affordable housing shortage, planning officers had recommended that it be rejected on environmental grounds, highlighting concerns surrounding the potential harm to protected trees and the River Eden Special Area of Conservation.
Planning officer Stephen Daniel told members that the applicant had not submitted a nutrient neutrality statement which was a reason for refusal.
Ward councillor Brian Wernham (Stanwix Urban, Lib Dems) spoke against the application and said: “The Stanwix Rural Parish Council has serious concerns about this project.
“They point out big problems with the drainage system. Despite many updates, the applicant has not fixed mistakes in their Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy.
“The proposed Greenfield Runoff Rate has not been adjusted, which could lead to flooding and other safety issues. Moreover, the parish council is worried about the impact on protected veteran trees.
“The applicant has not properly addressed the risk to these important trees. The council planning officers agree that the proposed drainage design is not safe or reliable.”
He also raised a number of concerns about the proposal including: the narrow access road; parking issues; a lack of traffic analysis; pedestrian safety risks; and emergency vehicle access.
A spokesman for the applicant who told members that 85 per cent of the homes were affordable and would address a need within the city and that the reasons for refusal were not justified.
A second spokeswoman said that trees would be protected during construction and the development would increase local tree cover. She added: “It is my professional opinion that the layout is acceptable.”
A third spokesman said the need for affordable housing was undeniable and unavoidable but highlighted a deep seated negativity towards affordable housing, such as public comments to media reports claiming that social housing was be used to house lager louts and dope fiends.
Committee chairwoman councillor Anne Glendinning (Castle, Labour) said, as someone who had lived in social housing, she would not accept such comments.
Councillor Bob Kelly (Millom, Labour) wondered if the application could be deferred so that a revised plan could be considered but Jane Meek, the council’s assistant director of thriving place and investment, said she was concerned about the cumulative effect the numerous amendments had had on the plan.
She added: “The amended plan arrived too late.”
Councillor Roger Dobson (Corby and Hayton, Lib Dems) wondered why the number of parking spaces was lower than the desired amount and he was told by highways officer Pieter Barnard said that, because the majority of the homes were affordable, it had been assessed that traffic use would be less than normal.
Councillor John Mallinson (Houghton and Irthington, Conservative) said they had been given conflicting advice from experts on the tree issue and that was the primary reason for refusal. He added: “I am really struggling with this.
“We have two views that the trees are veteran trees. One of the people at least is a trusted advisor to the council and I would go with that view.”
Councillor Robert Betton (Botcherby, Independent) said he was also concerned about the trees and observed that a number of residents had spoken against the application.
Cllr Mallinson proposed that they refuse planning permission and the committee unanimously agreed.
