None.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

None.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Agenda item 7: 162264 – Land between Tillington Road and Roman Road Hereford.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew members of the applicant’s family.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016.

It was noted that Councillor Norman had been present at the meeting but this had not been recorded.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Proposed outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 50 residential dwellings with associated access.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 50 residential dwellings with associated access.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry, Clerk to Hereford City Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs M Stevens, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs E Warren, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        Burghill Parish Council, Hereford City Council and a number of local residents had objected to the application.

·        The site was open pasture – a greenfield site in a rural area.

·        Concerns raised in letters of objection included noise, light and traffic pollution.

·        The site was not identified for development in the Burghill Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        There were concerns about water supply, sewerage and waste management.

·        The impact on local amenity was significant.

·        As noted in the objection of Hereford City Council the cumulative impact of developing the site was more than the area could reasonable bear.

·        The existing GP surgery had no capacity and could not expand on its existing site. More infrastructure was required.

·        She could not support the application given the major issues identified.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The land was not particularly valuable for agriculture.

·        The access was satisfactory.

·        There were some concerns as to whether Welsh Water would be able to provide the necessary infrastructure.  However, it was asserted that the development would not proceed if concerns about the water supply and sewerage could not be addressed.

·        A number of concerns were expressed relating to the detail, including the suggestion that there was a culvert crossing the site and a public footpath, the location of the children’s play area in the corner of the site, the transportation manager’s comments on footways round the junction of Tillington Road and Roman Road; and arrangements for pedestrians to cross Roman Road.  A request was made that consideration be given to an attenuation scheme rather than the SUDS being proposed, with provision of a wildlife zone.  Consideration of a wet system was also suggested.  It was also requested that the play area should be provided with outdoor gym equipment.

·        Several Members thought that a development of fewer houses than the “up to 50” proposed would be preferable.  A Member proposed a limit of 40. In response the Lead Development Manager commented that the final size of the development would be determined by the detailed layout and other requirements.  The proposed density was within the range specified in the Core Strategy.  The Committee had to determine the application before it.

·        The development was sustainable.

·        A large development was already proposed on the opposite side of the Roman Road. There had to be concern about traffic levels including HGVs.  The junction of Tillington Road and Roman Road would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Two 4 bed and two 3 bed detached houses with allocated garages and one 3 storey apartment block consisting of four 2 bed apartments and a top floor pent house suite. With landscaping and civil works.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Two 4 bed and two 3 bed detached houses with allocated garages and one 3 storey apartment block consisting of four 2 bed apartments and a top floor pent house suite. With landscaping and civil works.)

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. 

He concluded his comments by observing that in terms of the assessment of the impact of the proposal upon the Conservation Area, whilst the design and scale of the proposed buildings were considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the loss of trees associated with the siting of the buildings resulted in an overall assessment of harm.  However, the harm was considered to be limited and at the lower end of less than substantial and was mitigated in large part by the detailed replacement planting scheme.

Members broadly supported the scheme as sustainable development on a brownfield site.

A number of questions were asked about the loss of trees and the protection of the remaining trees during construction works. The Development Manager undertook to investigate a concern about a tree that had been planted as a memorial.

In response to a question about the height and setting of a three storey block at the front of the development the Lead Development Manager commented that it did reflect the character of the conservation area.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

5.         F15 No windows in side elevation of extension

6.         G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

7.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

8.         H06 Vehicular access construction

9.         H09 Driveway gradient

10.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

11.       H27 Parking for site operatives

12.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

13.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

14.       M17 Water Efficiency - Residential

15.       I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

16.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

17.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

18.       K5 Habitat Enhancement Scheme

Informatives:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

3.         HN05 Works within the highway

Proposed 6 no. Detached dwellings and 4 no. garages.

Consideration of the application was deferred pending a site visit.

(Proposed 6 no detached dwellings and 4 no. garages.)

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.  He clarified that the application was separate from the subsequent agenda item on application 161627.  The changes made to the layout were considered to make the scheme acceptable.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs B Nurse of Yarpole Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Barnett, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr D Brammer, a solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He advanced a number of grounds of objection to the application including the opposition of the Parish Council and many local residents, concerns about flooding and evacuation of the site in event of that or other emergency, poor pedestrian access, the need for the diversion of public rights of way before any building commenced, the inadequacies of the sewer network and the design and suburban layout of the proposal.  He was particularly concerned about highway safety and requested that the Committee undertake a site visit.

Members of the Committee indicated their support for a site visit.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Proposed dwelling and garage.

Consideration of the application was deferred pending a site visit.

(Proposed dwelling and garage.)

The Committee noted that whilst this was a separate application almost all the relevant considerations were the same as for application 161522, the previous application on the agenda.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Date of next site inspection – 6 December 2016

Date of next meeting – 7 December 2016