Proposed demolition of existing house and erection of 9 dwellings.  

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

(Proposed demolition of existing house and erection of 9 dwellings.)

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

 

The update issued to the Committee stated that having regard to Policy H1 it was now considered that there was no policy requirement to control the combined gross floor area of the development as long as the development was of 10 or less dwellings and it was proposed that condition 5 in the published report therefore be deleted.

 

She added that in response to concerns that had been expressed about highway safety she had sought further comment from the Highways Agency.  The Agency had reaffirmed that it had no objection to the application on the grounds of highway safety. The Agency was undertaking a speed survey review in the area.  This was due to be completed in January 2016.  Subject to the outcome it was proposed to secure funding for a Traffic Regulation Order in the Heads of Terms if it were possible to do so and add to the Heads of Terms.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs R Floyd and Mr D Ellis, local residents, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr N Williams, the applicant, spoke in support.

 

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

 

Her principal concern was about access to and egress from the site.  The stretch of road form Moreton on Lugg to Moreton Business Park had experienced a cluster of serious accidents in recent months including two fatalities.  She commented on the danger in turning right into the access and the cumulative effect on traffic of developments along the road.  The accident data did not accurately reflect the position.

 

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

 

·        The National Planning Policy Framework stated that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development were severe.  The impacts in relation to this application were severe..

·        It was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the Highways Agency’s speed survey.  The Development Manager commented that the Highways Agency considered the current access to be satisfactory.  The outcome of the speed survey would not lead to any deterioration in the safety of the access.

A motion that consideration of the application be deferred was lost.

·        There was a view that the mature trees on the site should be retained.

·        The absence of any affordable housing provision was regrettable.

·        The A49 was a busy road but it had to be accepted that development would take place along it.  The key was to ensure that appropriate safety measures were put in place for the development.  These would benefit existing residents too. It was requested that an informative be added urging the highways agency to impose a lower speed limit.

·        There was no right hand turn lane, only a sign saying private road.  There was a risk that a car overtaking another would collide with a vehicle waiting to turn right.

·        It was questioned, as the access road was unadopted, whether other residents could refuse access to construction traffic.  The legal adviser stated that it would depend on the nature of the legal agreement for the unadopted road.  The Development Manager commented that that was a civil matter between the road owners.

·        The site was already developed and the proposed replacement housing was of good design.

·        The Development Manager commented that no weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan; the density of the proposed development was relatively low and the layout was compatible with adjoining areas.  The key issue was the access from the A49.  The Highways Agency had stated that the access was acceptable and could accommodate the proposed development.

·        The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.    She reiterated that highway safety was the key concern and anything that could be done to improve the situation would be welcome.

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.         A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters

 

5.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

6.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

7.         G05 Pre-Development tree work

 

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

 

9.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

10.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

11.       H18 On site roads - submission of details

 

12.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

13.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

14.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

15.       The recommendations for species and habitat enhancements set out in Section 5 of the ecologist’s report from Protected Species Surveys dated July 2015 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme shall be carried out as approved.  On completion of the enhancement measures, confirmation 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

 

16.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

17.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

18.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

 

19.       Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme demonstrating measures for the efficient use of water as per the optional technical standards contained within Policy SD3 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Policies SD3 and SD4 of the Hereford Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

 

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.         N03 - Access Rights