Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an additional condition.

(Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.)

The Development Manager 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 refused a previous application on 24 February 2016.  However, that decision was the subject of an appeal and the application had been resubmitted.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of Leominster Civic Society and a local resident, 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:

·        Nothing in relation to the application appeared to have changed since the Committee had refused the application in February.  The grounds for refusal that had been advanced then remained valid.

·        She expressed disappointment that the Council’s concerns about the Neighbourhood Development Plan’s conformity with the Core Strategy, referred to in paragraph 2.3 of the report, had not been resolved at an earlier stage.  The Town Council’s view and that of local people was that a bypass should be built in advance of any further housing development.  Herefordshire Council considered that approach to be contrary to policy. The Neighbourhood Plan would not be approved in a referendum if it proposed otherwise.  This meant the Plan was effectively stalled.

·        Concerns about air pollution, highway safety and the preservation of a green corridor remained.  Congestion and air pollution had a direct impact upon people in the area and in their vehicles.

·        The changes being proposed to the rail service by Network Rail would mean increased waiting times at the level crossing and this would have a knock on effect on traffic in the vicinity of the proposed development.

·        The importance of preserving the green corridor was not being given the weight it warranted.  There was a risk that the area would be dominated by huge blocks of housing to the detriment of the setting and character of the area.

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

·        The Lead Development Officer explained that in considering the resubmitted application the absence of a 5 year housing land supply was a new factor to which the Committee had to have regard.  The applicant had advanced this as one of the grounds for their appeal. He noted that a seminar on the housing land supply would be arranged for July.

He also stated that he thought it unlikely that the Secretary of State would call in an application for 23 dwellings because it was in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan which was at Regulation 16 stage, as he had done in the case of an application for 100 dwellings at Bartestree.   Leominster Town Council needed to review the comments made by the Council on conformity with the Core Strategy, redraft and resubmit the Plan.  Whilst weight had to be given to the absence of a five year housing land supply he observed that paragraph 198 of the national planning practice guidance did provide that: where a planning application conflicted with a neighbourhood plan that had been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.

·        Disappointment was expressed that the lack of the NDP’s conformity with the Core Strategy had not been resolved at an earlier stage.  The Lead Development Manager commented that the Town Council had been informed of Herefordshire Council’s concerns in April 2015 but had not addressed them.

·        Regard had to be had to the fact that the Committee had approved the principle of the use of the proposed access for an application on adjoining land.

·        A Member questioned the statements in paragraph 6.14 of the report in relation to the application of policy LD3.  The Development Manager confirmed the paragraph reflected the way the policy was being interpreted.  The Member commented that he would be seeking further clarification.

The Lead Development Manager highlighted the additional condition recommended in the Committee update and that the Heads of Terms would provide for transport contributions.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her view that the preservation of the green corridor was important and again referred to the difficulty in reconciling the Neighbourhood Plan and the Core Strategy.  She remained of the view that the proposal was contrary to policy LO1, noting also paragraph 4.6.10 of the Core Strategy, relating to congestion and air quality in the Bargates area, and was also contrary to policy LO1 in that the developers had failed to engage with the local community on the proposal.

RESOLVED;  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to 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         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

            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 Policy LD2 of Herefordshire Local Plan-Core Strategy

 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 local 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        H03 - Visibility splays

11        H06 - Vehicular access construction

12        H13 - Access, turning area and parking

13        H27 - Parking for site operatives

14        H17 – Junction improvement/off site works

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 & 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