Residential development of up to 80 houses.

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

(Residential development of up to 80 houses.)

 

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.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms C Protherough of Clehonger Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr Catley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

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

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        His initial view had been that the proposal might be acceptable.  However, he supported the Parish Council’s grounds for opposing the proposal.

·        He expressed concerns about traffic speeds and the limited parking by the school.

·        The large scale of the development would have an adverse impact on the quality of life in the village.

·        The development would also adversely affect travel to Hereford along the Belmont road.

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

 

·        Clehonger had experienced problems with the sewerage drainage for a number of years and it was questioned whether a financial contribution from one developer would be sufficient to solve these problems.  In addition a new drainage system would have to be installed before the development could be occupied.  The application was therefore premature and seeking to take advantage of the fact that the Core Strategy was yet to be adopted.

·        The highway infrastructure was unsatisfactory.  Visibility on exiting the site was impeded by the Seven Stars Public House.  People travelling to work on the Belmont Road into Hereford experienced significant delays.  The road did not have the capacity to accommodate additional vehicles.

·        Information was sought on the accident record in the vicinity of the development but this was not to hand.

·        The Development Manager clarified that the Neighbourhood Plan had not reached Regulation 14 stage. The density of the development was 28 per hectare; the Unitary Development Plan policy was that a density of 30-50 was acceptable.  The Committee had to accept the advice that a solution to the provision of foul water drainage had been found.  Traffic speeds were the principal concern.  It was proposed to move the 30mph speed limit to the east and this action together with traffic calming measures should address this concern. Acceptable visibility splays could be provided within a 30mph limit.   It was also proposed to extend the footpath to the public house and provide a crossing facility to the bus stop.

·        There appeared to be an inconsistency in that the report referred to Clehonger as a main village with an 18% indicative growth target in the Core Strategy over the plan period.  The report then went on to talk about a residual minimum housing requirement over the lifetime of the Core Strategy.  It was understood that the Inspector had required the wording in the Core Strategy to be changed to refer to minimum housing targets.  This had an extremely significant effect.  It meant that any site with low or minimum constraints became developable.  By removing any upper limit on development it also rendered meaningless the Government target of 16,500 houses for the County, a target that was in any case arguably 2,000 higher than the actual requirement.  The Development Manager confirmed that housing targets in the Core Strategy pertaining to villages were now a minimum.

·        The development was too large.

·        If the development were to be approved regard should be had to the landscape proposals made by the Conservation Manager (Landscape) at page 41 of the agenda papers.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the density of the proposed development was commensurate with other developments in the village and not excessive in the local context.  He also confirmed that there were no concerns about school capacity, noting the provisions in the draft S106 agreement.

·        The development was sustainable in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        It was noted that Natural England had withdrawn its holding objections in relation to the treatment of foul waste and the River Wye Special Area of Conservation.

·        There were no objections from the statutory or internal consultees and no grounds for refusing the application.

·        It was requested that the Parish Council should be fully involved in a subsequent detailed application.

·        The Committee had been given advice that if an application went to appeal an Inspector would take account of the position at the time he considered the appeal.  If as expected the Core Strategy was to be adopted shortly the Inspector would have regard to that Strategy in determining an appeal.  The imminent adoption of the Core Strategy therefore provided grounds for refusing the application.

The Development Manager commented that the Core Strategy would support developments such as that being proposed.  There were very few objections to the proposal.  The argument about the adverse effect of increased traffic on the Belmont Road had been dismissed by an Inspector in another appeal. The development would provide 80 homes for which there was a need with 35% of those being affordable.  The improvements to be made by Welsh Water funded by the developer were another positive aspect of the proposal. A gateway feature could be provided as part of the traffic calming measures.  This had worked well in other developments. The S106 benefits would also enhance the village.  An informative could be added requesting the developer to consult fully with the Parish Council on the detail of the development.  

 

He considered that that it would be difficult to defend a decision to refuse the application at an appeal.  The Committee’s legal adviser commented that given the content of the report and the Development Manager’s comments if the application were to be refused there would be a risk of costs being awarded against the authority in the event of a successful appeal.

 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his support for the Parish Council’s objection to the proposal.  He added that if the application were to be approved a 30 mph speed limit should also be imposed on Gosmore Road.

 

A motion that the application be refused was defeated.

 

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, (incorporating a ‘Welsh Water’ contribution) 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 development shall include no more than 80 dwellings and no dwelling shall be more than two 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.

 

6.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

7.         H09 Driveway gradient

 

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

 

9.         H17 Junction improvement/off site works

 

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.       H30 Travel plans

 

17.       No dwellings hereby approved shall be beneficially occupied until necessary improvements to the Clehonger Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate the foul flows from the development hereby approved (in accordance with the requirements as outlined in Dwr Cymru’s Feasibility Study Scope issued 07/07/2015) has been completed and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system.

 

18.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

19.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

20.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

21.       L04 Comprehensive & Integrated draining of site

 

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

 

23.       G10 Landscaping scheme

 

24.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

25.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from Ecology Services dated August 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 and sites 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’s Unitary Development Plan.

 

26.       Prior to commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted for approval in writing by the local planning authority and shall include timing of the works, details of storage of materials and measures to minimise the extent of dust, odour, noise and vibration arising from the construction process. Specific measures to safeguard the integrity of any local private water supplies should be highlighted such as pollution risk and increased use projections.  The Plan shall be implemented as approved.

            Reasons:  To ensure that all species and sites 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’s Unitary Development Plan.

 

            To comply with policies NC8 and NC9 within Herefordshire’s Unitary Development Plan in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the NPPF and the NERC Act 2006.

 

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.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

4.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

5.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

6.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

7.         HN27 Annual travel Plan Reviews

 

8.         HN25 Travel Plans

 

9.         HN13 Protection of visibility splays on private land

 

10.       N02  Section 106 obligation

 

(The meeting adjourned between 11.05 – 11.15)