Proposed 10 no dwellings with garages.    

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

(Proposed 12 no dwellings with garages.)

 

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 noted that the Committee had deferred consideration of the application to permit consideration of a single access to the two sites: applications 150052 – land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster and 150053 – land at and west of West Winds, Cholstrey Road, Leominster which were adjoining.  Application 150053 appeared as a separate application on the agenda.   Application 150052 had been revised from an application for 10 dwellings to an application for 12 dwellings.  Application 150053 had been revised from an application for 25 dwellings to an application for 23 dwellings. 

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, speaking on behalf of Leominster Civic Society and local residents, spoke in objection.

 

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

 

She made the following principal comments:

 

·        It was important that there was no access onto Ginhall Lane. However, a common access to the two proposed sites would mean a concentration of more traffic at that point.

·        There had been no discussion with the local ward member or the Town Council on the draft S106 agreement.  She was particularly disappointed that no pedestrian crossing for the Barons Cross estate was included.

·        There were already serious traffic problems at the Bargates to which the developments would add.  Other large developments were also proposed at Barons Cross and the strategic urban extension.

·        The Bargates Area was an air quality management area and pollution levels contravened EU Directives. Pollution was a serious health issue.  Core Strategy (CS) policy L01 stated that new development proposals would be encouraged where (amongst other things) they ensured that they did not exacerbate air pollution levels within the designated air quality management area at Bargates.

·        She noted that it had been promised over two years ago that smart traffic lights would be installed at the Bargates to reduce pollution but this had not yet happened.

·        Policy L01 also stated that new development proposals would be encouraged where (amongst other things) they had demonstrated engagement and consultation with the community including the town/parish council.  The applicants had not properly engaged or consulted.

·        Local residents reported that accidents did happen on Cholstrey Road where the access was proposed, contrary to the official record, and one had in fact happened on Friday 19 February.  The road crossed the brow of a hill and there was a blind spot especially when the sun was low.

·        The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2011 (SHLAA) stated that the site would not be well integrated as it was divorced from the existing residential area by public open space.  The site had significant constraints and there were other more appropriate sites that should be considered first.  In particular, she considered land at Barons Cross, as a brownfield site, should be developed first.

·        Core Strategy Policy LD3 stated that development proposals should identify and retain existing green infrastructure corridors.

·        The Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was at Regulation 16 stage.  This had involved a great deal of effort by the local community.  Policy LNP 10 of that Plan reflected the local community’s view that retaining the green corridor and rural approach to the Town was essential.  The report before the Committee did state that the NDP was a material consideration.

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

·        In deferring the application in December the Committee’s main concern had been the suitability of the access rather than the principle of development.

·        If the application were to be approved the opportunity should be taken to make a number of highway improvements.   These should include improved signage including signs warning of the entrance to the development; restricting the speed limit on Ginhall Lane to 30mph, and redesigning the Ginhall Lane junction with Green Lane to manage traffic flow.

·        The proposal was contrary to policies L01 and LD3.

·        Clarification was sought on the weight that could be given to the NDP, noting the difference in wording at paragraphs 2.3 and 6.8 of the report.  It was suggested that there was an issue of prematurity.  If the application were to be refused and an appeal lodged, by the time that the appeal was heard the NDP would have been approved and full weight could be given to it at the appeal.

·        The area was identified as part of a green corridor of importance to the Town.  Paragraph 6.7 of the report referred to mitigation measures if the development proceeded.  However, CS policy LD 3 required the retention of existing green infrastructure corridors and their enhancement.  The NDP supported the retention of this green corridor.

·        The lack of consultation on the draft S106 agreement was regrettable.  The Chairman commented that it was important that local ward members were consulted on S106 agreements and requested that Members inform him directly of any concerns about lack of consultation.

·        Pollution levels in the Bargates area were a concern.

·        There were highway safety issues.

·        In response to questions the Development Manager commented that:

·        There was not an issue of prematurity.  The NDP was still the subject of consultation.  At an appeal it might be at a stage where it would carry more weight but the Committee should not give weight to the NDP in the planning balance at this point.

·        The SHLAA provided an overview and the designation in the SHLAA was not an automatic ground for refusal.

·        The revised application before the Committee was for 12 dwellings, not 10 as incorrectly stated on the report title.  Consultation on the revised application had made this aspect of the revision clear and this revision had been included in the Committee update.  The legal advisor confirmed that the Committee could proceed to determine the application.

·        It was regrettable that there were concerns about consultation on the draft S106 agreement but it did provide a raft of contributions.

·        The provision of a relief road to alleviate pollution in the Bargates Area was included as part of the strategic urban extension of Leominster proposed within the Core Strategy.  Funding Avenues were being explored. Development on the strategic site in Leominster would attract no community infrastructure levy to assist in funding the road.

·        He confirmed that if the application were approved further discussions would take place with the local ward member on S106 projects and a reserved matters application would be subject to a further consultation exercise.

·        The speed survey had been undertaken when there was a 50mph limit.  The limit had now reduced to 40mph and a Traffic Regulation Order reducing the limit to 30 mph was proposed if the development proceeded.  There would be no access off Ginhall Lane even if the associated application 150053 were to be refused.  The Transportation Manager added that the speed survey undertaken in 2014 before the reduction in the limit to 40mph had shown the 85%ile speed as 48mph. His recommendation was that a 30 mph limit should be provided.  A number of engineering features were also proposed to reinforce the 30mph limit.  There had been an accident on Friday 19 February in the locality although he did not as yet have details of the precise location. The reduced speed limit and engineering measures at the appropriate cost were necessary.

 

·        The Principal Planning Officer commented that neither the application site nor the site the subject of application 150053 were believed to have formed part of a brick works nearby.  An informative had been included as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer (contamination) to ensure that any issues of potential contamination of the site were addressed.

 

·        Clarification was sought on the relative weight that it was appropriate to give to various policy issues raised in the debate in applying the planning balance.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that having examined the Inspector’s ruling in a recent appeal no weight could be given to the NDP in the planning balance.  In relation to the protection of the green corridor and policy LD3 the site in question was not classified as green belt and in itself the protection of the green corridor was not a ground for refusal.  This factor needed to be weighed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Development Manager commented that the Core Strategy required the development of 2,300 homes in Leominster.  Allowing for the strategic site identified for 1,500 homes and commitments for 130 homes this left a need for a further 670 homes.  It was to be hoped that the NDP would identify suitable sites.

 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.   She commented that the expansion of Leominster by a minimum of 2,300 homes was excessive.  It had been requested that the bypass be developed before any further housing development to help address the current pollution problems in the Bargates.  There was no indication that a bypass would be constructed soon.  The local community through the Town Council and the NDP had expressed clear, strong opposition to the application.  The applicants had not approached the Town Council.  Weight should also be given to the protection of the green corridor, and the addition to the current pollution problems in the Bargates.

 

RESOLVED:  That Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms referred to in the report and circulated as part of the committee update, 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          Prior to commencement of the development, a species mitigation and habitat enhancement scheme integrated with the landscape scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

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

5          L01 Foul/surface water drainage

6          L02 No surface water to connect to public system

7.         L03 No drainage run-off to public system

8          No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved 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.

 

9.         I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

10.       I21 Scheme of surface water regulation

11        H03 Visibility splays

12.       H06 Vehicular access construction

13.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

15        H03 Visibility splays (2.4m  x 105m)

16        H09 Driveway gradient

17        H11 Parking-estate development  (more than one house)

18        H17 Junction improvements /off site works

19        H20 Road completion in 2 years

20        H21 Wheel washing

21        H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

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. 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 and Drainage details

4.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

5.         HN01 Mud on highway

6.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

7.         HN05 Works within the highway

8          The proposed development is near to a former brick works and clay pit. These may be considered potentially contaminative uses, our records do not suggest that this encroaches on to the site or that the clay pit has been filled but the applicant may wish to satisfy themselves this is the case through suitable assessment should there be any concern.

9          HN07 Section 278 Agreement

10        HN24 Drainage other than via highway system