Proposed erection of 25 new dwellings of mixed tenure and associated works to provide a new access road.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of 25 new dwellings of mixed tenure and associated works to provide a new access road.)

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.

She corrected paragraph 6.26 of the report, confirming that the proposal would not represent an intensification of use that would result in a detrimental impact on the local and strategic highway network.  She also corrected paragraph 6.28 of the report noting that no S106 agreement would be required.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr H Ray, Chairman of Pyons Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G McLeod, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Tomlinson from Herefordshire Housing spoke on behalf of the applicant.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development might appear to be a straightforward expansion of an approved scheme, but that was not the case.

·        The planning permission for the original scheme had required a drainage scheme to be approved in writing and that no development should take place until that approval had been granted.  However, development had commenced on site.

·        The sum of money that the developer had agreed to provide under the S106 agreement for the original scheme to mitigate the effect of the original development had been reduced.  A larger development was now being proposed creating an even greater need for mitigating measures that would no longer be provided.

·        The new proposal would provide less, or even no, green space.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy RA2 of the Core Strategy and policy PG3 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

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

·        The original proposal had been unsatisfactory; the new proposal was worse.  The village was opposed to the scheme and the NDP had identified other sites.

·        Policy RA2 placed an emphasis on NDPs determining what housing individual settlements required.  This must be interpreted to mean that the NDP for a settlement had primacy.  Irrespective of the need for affordable housing in the county as a whole, the research carried out in developing the Pyons Group NDP had not identified a need in their settlement for the level of affordable housing that the application proposed.

·        The Principal Planning Officer explained in relation to the provision of a S106 agreement that at the council’s request the applicant had engaged the district valuer to consider the viability of the original scheme.  It had been concluded that the scheme was not viable when fully policy compliant and a deed of variation was agreed that reduced the affordable housing provision to 9 units and included a contribution of approximately £57,750.  However, there were two people with an interest in the land who needed to be signatory to the section 106 agreement. The developer has not been able to make contact with these people, and therefore there was a risk that the section 106 agreement would not be signed before the grant funding for the site expired. Officers had been working with the developer to see how benefits could be secured in the absence of a section 106 agreement.

·        Members of the Committee expressed discontent at the change to the S106 agreement noting that the agreement had been approved to provide mitigation for the original development.

·        The Lead Development Manager stated that a change to a S106 agreement of this nature was only undertaken after careful consideration, hence the involvement of the district valuer, who had determined that the scheme was not viable with the original S106 agreement.  He confirmed that in such cases the local ward member was informed.

·        The new proposal reduced the quality of the development.

·        The Transportation Manager had expressed concern about the hedgerow between the footpath and the visibility splay.

·        The reduction in green space was contrary to the Core strategy.

·        A drainage scheme had still not been agreed yet development had commenced.

·        A member expressed concern that the council’s lack of a five year housing land supply might mean that a decision to refuse planning permission might be lost at an appeal.

·        The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the NDP had reached regulation 16 stage and that weight could be attributed to it in determining the application.  The site had planning permission and the proposal was for an amended design.  The overall footprint was less than the original development. In considering the need for affordable housing account had to be taken of the needs of adjoining parishes that could not themselves make such provision.  Hub villages would be expected to deliver provision for the more rural areas.

He also confirmed that the developer had commenced work on site and had been advised that this was at his own risk.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

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

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies in the Core strategy and the Pyons Group NDP.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy Policies RA1 and RA2 and LD1 and Pyons Group Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies PG2 and PG3.