Proposed residential development (up to 110 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

 

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

(Proposed residential development (up to 110 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.)

 

(Councillor DW Greenow having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest left the meeting for the duration of this item..  Councillor DB Wilcox and Mr K Bishop declared non-pecuniary interests.)

The Principal Planning Officer 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.  The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the updated position on proposed section 106 contributions from the developer and further comment from the Transportation Manager which concluded that the transportation impact of the proposal was considered acceptable, subject to conditions.  The update noted that condition 10 in the report relating to junction improvement/off-site works could be deleted.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr N White, Chairman of Hampton Bishop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs M Joel, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr K Whitmore, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution,   Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         An appeal against non-determination of an earlier application was pending.

·         The applicant had originally proposed 95 houses at a public exhibition.  The earlier application submitted had been for up to 120 houses.  The current application was for up to 110 houses.  He did not consider this to be a sufficient reduction and thought a development of between 60-70 houses would be more feasible.

·         The development could have a considerable effect upon the highway.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had stated that the revised application was not materially different from the original one.

·         He welcomed the Section 106 agreement proposals.

Councillor JLV Kenyon and Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, as adjoining Ward Members, were also invited to speak.

Councillor Kenyon spoke in support of the Scheme welcoming the proposed Section 106 contributions which would enable a number of initiatives he had promoted to the benefit of the community to be delivered.  There was local support for the scheme and no one had spoken to him opposing it.  The Scheme would deliver much needed housing 35 % of which would be affordable housing.  It was of concern that the original application for up to 120 houses was the subject of an appeal and carried with it none of the Section 106 contributions provided for within the revised application.

Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes commented that the housing was much needed.  She had received no objections to the application and on balance considered it would benefit both the Tupsley Ward and Hampton Bishop.  She hoped that consideration would be given to providing for different designs of properties within the development, enhanced landscaping and traffic management at the Church Street junction. 

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Assurance was sought that Hampton Bishop Parish Council’s concerns about drainage would be met by the revised proposal and that the requirements of the Land Drainage Officer would be met by the conditions in the recommendation.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the conditions would ensure land drainage issues were addressed and the detail would form part of an application at the reserved matters stage.

Account should be taken of the reduction in the number of houses in the Section 106 negotiations and the benefit that would be derived from the proposed Section 106 agreement contributions.

The development was sustainable and in the absence of five-year housing land supply should be approved in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There was support for the Conservation Officer’s (Landscapes) objection.  However, one view was that this was outweighed by the benefits of the improved, revised application.  Another view was that the landscape value was such that the revised application should be refused.

The housing, of which 35% would be affordable housing, was needed and there had been only 7 letters of objection received.

It was requested that the developers provide houses of good design and had regard to future energy costs.

There was a view that the application was an improved scheme and preferable to the previous proposal for the site.

In response to questions about traffic management measures the Area Engineer reiterated the comments in paragraph 4.3 of the report that the traffic impact of the development would not constitute a severe impact and would not form transport grounds for refusal.

It was asked whether approval of the development would set a precedent encouraging development on the perimeter of the City, such growth having to date been resisted where it was outside the City boundary.  The Development Manager commented that it would not set a precedent in that each application had to be determined on its merits.  However, it was accepted that other developers may refer to permissions that had been granted that they considered relevant.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the application was an improvement on that previously submitted but it remained a finely balanced decision taking note in particular of the Conservation Manager’s comments and the proposed section 106 contributions.

 

Councillors Kenyon and Lloyd Hayes reiterated their support for the application.

 

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary.

 

1.         A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

           

 

2.         A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

 

 

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters

 

 

4.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

 

5.         The submission of reserved matters in respect of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and the implementation of the development shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the Development Framework Plan 5476-L-02 Revision E and the Design and Access Statement dated May 2014.

 

            Reason:  To define the terms of the permission and to conform to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, HBA4 and LA4 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

6.         The development shall include no more than 110 dwellings and no dwelling shall be more than two and a half storeys high.

 

            Reason: To define the terms of the permission and to conform to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, H13 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

7.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

8.         H09 Driveway gradient

 

9.         H11 Parking - estate development (more than one house)

 

10.       H18 On site roads - submission of details

 

11.       H19 On site roads - phasing

 

12.       H20 Road completion in 2 years

 

13.       H21 Wheel washing

 

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

15.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

16.       E01 Site investigation - archaeology

 

17.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

18.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

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

 

20.       G10 Landscaping scheme

 

21.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

22.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report dated May 2014 should be followed in relation to the identified protected species. Prior to commencement of the development, a full working method statement should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

23.       The recommendations in relation to biodiversity enhancement set out in Section 4 of the ecologist’s report dated May 2014 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to commencement of the development, a habitat protection and enhancement scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

            Reason:  To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

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, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission 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.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

4.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

5.         HN13 Protection of visibility splays on private land

 

6.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

7.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

8.         An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work

 

9.         N11C Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981