Proposed residential development of three dwellings.  

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

(Proposed residential development of three dwellings.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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 T Cramp, of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr T Hancox, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been 32 letters of objection and one letter of objection from the Allensmore Residents Group containing a further 13 signatures.  The Parish Council had also objected to the application urging that it be rejected to safeguard the amenity, character and local landscape of the village and the road safety of local residents.

·        The application was at odds with every relevant planning policy in the Allensmore Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  The NDP was a material consideration in determining the application.

·        The application also contravened several policies within the Core Strategy.  She outlined each policy in turn to demonstrate the cumulative demonstrable harm.

·        NDP Policy A1 – and Core Strategy Policy RA2: The application was not in keeping with the local built character and the linear nature of the village.  Policy RA2 recognised and valued the character and uniqueness of small settlements across the county and sought to ensure this was protected.

·        NDP Policy A2 – & Core Strategy Policy LD2: priority for new development should be to avoid harmful impact on biodiversity.  The Hereford Wildlife Trust had identified a pond 300m away with Great Crested Newts.  This did not appear to be considered in the ecological assessment and therefore it may not be compliant with Core Strategy Policy LD2 in relation to biodiversity

·        The application was contrary to policy A2. The drainage arrangements were not in accordance with the Binding Rules as treated effluent would be going to a dry ditch.  The drainage consultant had stated that if the current proposals were implemented there was a likelihood of pollution on third party land.

·        NDP Policy A3 – The site was outside the planning envelope and had been rejected by the independent assessors AECOM, due to its harm to the character of the settlement.  Allensmore had already significantly exceeded the minimum 14% target growth of 32 new dwellings, 41 having been built or approved.  On its own this was not a reason for refusal provided the application was acceptable in all other regards, which it was not.  There were further site allocations within the Allensmore NDP.  Further housing growth could be achieved without the significant harm that the application would cause.

·        NDP Policy A4 –The application was not within the settlement boundary, not of single depth, and not a brownfield site.  An independent report demonstrated that there was not a suitable and safe access.

·        NDP Policy A5 – The application did not demonstrate how it helped to maintain a suitable mix  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88