Site for proposed residential development for 30 houses.

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

 

(Site for proposed residential development for 30 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.

 

He highlighted that determination of the application had been deferred by the Committee on 5 August 2015.  In response to the Committee’s concern that the application represented overdevelopment the applicant had now proposed a development of up 30 houses rather than the 35 originally proposed.  This represented a development of 24 dwellings per hectare reduced from 27 per hectare.  This was considered an acceptable density for the site, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, because of the proposed provision of green open space.  The application remained an outline application.  The indicative layout contained with the original application had been withdrawn and the applicant had submitted a revised plan showing only the means of access.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Pendleton of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Wheeler, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

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

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        Local support remained for the retention of the area as public open space.

·        The absence of an indicative layout meant that it was unclear where dwellings would now be situated.  There was no clarity as to where the proposed green space would be provided.

·        He questioned the accuracy of the traffic survey by Balfour Beatty Living Places of the use of the Bargates suggesting that it did not take account of traffic exiting Westfield Court.

·        It appeared that there was to be a single lane access onto the site.  This was dangerous. There were already parking problems in the area because of dwellings having a lack of parking spaces and parking on the roadside.  There was a concern about access for emergency vehicles. 

·        He was not wholly opposed to development on the site but considered there were still too many issues that remained outstanding.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that the application was an outline application and the Committee therefore had to consider the principle of development and the suitability of the access, which he confirmed was a two way access.  If the application were approved detailed proposals would be subject to consultation.  He noted that condition 6 in the recommendation in the report needed to be amended to limit the development to 30 dwellings.

 

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

 

·        The density of development had been reduced.

·        The withdrawal of the indicative layout made it hard to assess the impact on residents.  Whilst local residents accepted the principle of development this was subject to the provision of green open space as part of any scheme.

·        The report’s comments on highway matters were not accepted.  The area was served by a network of very small roads lined with traffic.  The roads were dangerous for users including emergency vehicles.  The pollution problems on the Bargates were significant and there was no sign of a resolution to them.  The application site provided a green lung.

·        The application site had not been included in the Town’s Neighbourhood Plan.  This was well advanced.  There was ample land allocated for housing in Leominster including the strategic allocation and other allocations.  It was suggested that the development was therefore premature.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the only basis on which prematurity could be advanced as a ground for refusal would be if it could be demonstrated that the application would in some way delay the development of the strategic allocation in the Core Strategy of 1,500 new homes in Leominster.  It was difficult to see how such an argument could be made. 

 

The Development Manager confirmed that the Leominster Neighbourhood Plan was at Regulation 14 stage.  A Member asserted that the Plan was therefore close to achieving Regulation 16 stage at which point weight could be given to the Plan.  To have reached Regulation 14 the Plan must be in general conformity with the Core Strategy.  The application site was not in the Plan and it was for that reason that he considered an argument could be advanced that the application was premature.

 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He commented that he remained concerned about the proposal.  If planning permission were to be granted he requested that he be consulted on the detailed application.  

 

The Development Manager confirmed that the local ward member would be consulted.

 

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.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)       

 

2.         A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

 

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters

 

4.         A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters

 

5.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

6.         The development shall include no more than 30 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.

 

7.         H02 Single access – footway

 

8.         H03 Visibility splays

 

9.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

10.       H11 Parking – estate development (more than one house)

 

11.       H18 On site roads – submission of details

 

12.       H20 Road completion

 

13.       H21 Wheel washing

 

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

15.       H29 Covered and secure cycle parking provision

 

16.       The recommendations for species and habitat enhancements set out in the Preliminary Herptofauna Mitigation Strategy from Nigel Hand dated June 2015  should be completed as approved before development commences on site.  On completion of the mitigation measures, confirmation of the translocation should be made to the local planning authority in writing together with  photographic evidence of the measures implemented.

 

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

 

            Reasons:  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.

 

            To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Policy NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the NPPF and the NERC Act 2006

 

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

 

18.       G09 Details of boundary treatments

 

19.       G10 Landscaping scheme

 

20.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

21.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

22.       No development shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

 

a)         a 'desk study' report including previous site and adjacent site uses, potential contaminants arising from those uses, possible sources, pathways, and receptors, a conceptual model and a risk assessment in accordance with current best practice

b)         if the risk assessment in (a) confirms the possibility of a significant pollutant linkage(s), a site investigation should be undertaken to characterise fully the nature and extent and severity of contamination, incorporating a conceptual model of all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors

c)         if the risk assessment in (b) identifies unacceptable risk(s) a detailed scheme specifying remedial works and measures necessary to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The Remediation Scheme shall include consideration of and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination encountered shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for written approval.

 

Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

23.       The Remediation Scheme, as approved pursuant to condition 22 above, shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied. On completion of the remediation scheme the developer shall provide a validation report to confirm that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details, which must be submitted before the development is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme including the validation reporting shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken.

 

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

24.       If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, an amendment to the Method Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

 

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

25.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

26.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

27.       L04 Comprehensive and integrated draining of site

 

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 38Agreement & Drainage details

 

4.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

5.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

6.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

7.         HN24 Drainage other than via highway system

 

8.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

9.         HN28 Highway Design Guide and Specification

 

10.       The assessment required by condition 22 should be undertaken in accordance with good practice guidance and should be carried out by a suitably competent person as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.  The assessment must also include asbestos sampling and analysis and this should be included with any submission.