Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings. 

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings.)

(Councillor Hunt was not present during consideration of part of this application and accordingly did not vote upon it.  Councillor Stone fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr E Molloy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Stone, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He referenced the objections from 15 local residents and Brimfield and Little Hereford Group Parish Council.  He noted that although a representative of the Parish Council had been unable to attend the meeting the Parish Council had submitted additional representations in objection to the proposal as set out in the schedule of updates.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy BLH5 3a of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        Neighbours would be adversely affected by the access, traffic, gradient and light pollution.

·        Suitable surface water run-off procedures had not been proposed.

·        The need to use cess pits would lead to increased traffic movements to empty them, to the detriment of neighbours.

·        The C1053, the access road, was narrow and had been a safety concern to residents for some time.  There was no footpath and it was well used by pedestrians. The road was also used by cyclists, riders along with the neighbouring footpaths.  The parish council had requested warning signs.

·        The proposal would increase the tanker journeys to empty the cess pits – some 190 trips per annum to the detriment of the environment and road safety.

·        The report proposed that control would need to be imposed through a section 106 agreement to ensure that the cesspools were emptied at a suitable disposal site. It was questioned how effective this would be and concern expressed about the risk to public health and the environment.

·        He questioned whether the amount of surface water run-off was being underestimated, mindful of climate change.  There had been instances of flooding.

·        The report noted that the applicant must establish the adjacent landowner as they were the riparian of the watercourse and ensure that permission was obtained for disposal of water into this watercourse. It was questioned how this would be actioned.

·        The proportionate housing growth target for the area had been achieved.

·        He welcomed the proposal that 2 of the 4 proposed dwellings would be bungalows.  The proposal did also comply with policy BLH5 of the NDP accepting that it was adjacent to the settlement.

·        The economic and social benefits from the development would be modest. There was a successful pub but the church and village hall could only be reached by car or bicycle down the busy A456.  It was too dangerous by foot.  There were therefore very few local facilities.  That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40