A dozen reasons for plan refusal

A council planning’s officer’s report on the Highland Court development highlights 12 key reasons on why it has been recommended for refusal.

Despite acknowledging the support it would provide for leisure activities and sport clubs, Steve Musk questions its proposed location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

His report says: “The proposed development would represent an unsustainable, sporadic and visually harmful form of devel- opment detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area... no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to override the identified harm to the designated landscape.”

Apparent failures to address the “adverse impact on air quality” were also cited in the report along with regret over the loss of the “best and most versatile” agricultural land.

It continues: “Together with the significant levels of traffic generated by the development, the application is therefore considered to cause harm to highway safety.”

The fact the proposed 300 acres are not included in the city council’s Local Plan blueprint is another factor against Mr Quinn’s plans.

The report also cites failures to secure necessary community infrastructure, not offering an appropriate housing market mix and a lack of sufficient archaeological assessments as more reasons behind the refusal.