By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
Controversial plans to build 80 homes on the outskirts of a Gloucestershire town have been rejected amid opposition from hundreds of people and concerns over lack of public transport.
Lantar Developments Ltd has been refused permission by Forest of Dean District Council to develop the more than five acres of land north of Grove Lane in Allaston, Lydney.
The proposals are for half of the homes on the site to be affordable and vehicular access is proposed on Allaston Road with a pedestrian link onto Grove Lane.
More than 380 people opposed the scheme along with Lydney Town Council.
Objectors raised concerns that the scheme went against planning regulations, was in the open countryside, and would lead to a loss of open space.
They also pointed out there are brownfield sites suitable for housing in the town and that Lydney has had more than its fair share of new homes.
Neil James, a resident, was among those who spoke at the development management committee meeting on November 12.
He raised major concerns over the access to the town centre via Driffield Road and Allaston Road.
“Driffield Road is narrow without adequate safe passing places,” he said.
“This results in the inevitable confrontation of opposing vehicles which is particularly hazardous during the inclement weather conditions and during the hours of darkness.”
He also said Allaston Road was in a poor state of repair and had hazardous problems at the Albert Street junction.
Matt Tyas, a Zesta planning agent, called on the committee to approve the proposals.
He said Lydney is the location where new homes are expected to be built to meet the housing needs for the Forest.
“The application comes at a time when the council has a significant five year housing supply shortfall,” he said. “And a high level of affordable housing need in Lydney.”
He said the mix of homes would include homes for first time buyers, bungalows and rented properties.
He said people could travel from the site by walking and public transport and said the Robin service provides frequent connections to the town centre.
Ward Councillor Harry Ives (C, Lydney North) said he did not support the plans which he felt were in direct conflict with the council’s policies and the site is unsustainable.
“This application is asking to build 80 houses in a location that is outside a settlement boundary, in the open countryside on land which is not allocated for housing.”
He said it was extremely poorly served by public transport and was more than a mile from the town centre.
Cllr Richard Burton (G, Newnham) questioned the site’s sustainable travel merits.
And Cllr Gill Moseley (LD, Newent and Taynton) echoed concerns over the lack of public transport.
But she hoped demand would improve public transport in the area.
“I hope the capacity of the bus service will improve with the demand,” she said.
She proposed approving the scheme in line with the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Jacob Sanders (L, Cinderford West) said he did not think many homes would be approved in the Forest if they required a good standard of public transport.
Cllr John Francis (I, Longhope and Huntley) said the committee was between a “rock and hard place” as the council is expected to allow more house building in the district.
“It isn’t sustainable from a transport point of view,” he said.
And Cllr Simon Phelps (I, Westbury-on-Severn) said he had reservations but the council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply.
He feared refusal would lead to an appeal against the decision from the developer.
Chairman Dave Wheeler (G, Newland and Sling) said it was not a sustainable location for houses.
He said public transport links were “at least a bike’s ride away” and pointed out that getting down to Lydney was fine but getting back up the hill is very difficult.
“Traipsing up that hill is a very long slog,” he said. The committee rejected the bid to grant permission by eight votes to three.
Cllr Burton proposed rejecting the scheme on gounds that concerns over the sites unsustainability, lack of transport and flooding concerns outweighed the shortfall in housing.
The committee voted to reject the proposals by eight votes to three.
Gloucester News Centre – http://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk
