Variation of condition 19 (p140285/0 76 dwellings and a business centre) amend to: the b1 commercial unit and its associated infrastructure as shown on approved plan 0609- 11/d/3.01 shall be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the final occupation of 35 no. Dwellings.

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

(Variation of condition 19 (p140285/0 76 dwellings and a business centre) amend to: the b1 commercial unit and its associated infrastructure as shown on approved plan 0609- 11/d/3.01 shall be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the final occupation of 35 no. Dwellings.)

(Councillor Shaw fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs G Churchill, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        It would be reasonable to expect the developer to have agreed arrangements they considered reasonable prior to signing contracts and beginning works, in particular given the hybrid nature of the scheme and the fact that the associated economic development was a key part of granting permission.

·        There was a pattern of developers asking planning committees to relax the terms of agreements they had freely entered into subsequent to commencing development.  This raised a question mark over the value of any such agreement made by a developer.

·        It was unclear why the developer was seeking a variation to condition 19 which they had freely accepted.

·        The developer needed to bring pressure to bear on its development partner.

The Chairman reported that Councillor Seldon, an adjoining ward member had submitted a statement.  In summary this referred to how contentious applications on the site had been and whether the request to vary the condition was reasonable.

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

·        The PPO commented:

·        The planning permission only required the first of the six business units to be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the first occupation of any dwellings.  One had been commenced but not completed.

·        The two elements of the site were now in separate ownership.  He considered the housing developer, who had not been involved at the time of the original application, was doing all it could to seek to encourage the landowner who had retained the business unit element to deliver it.

·        If the application were to be refused the developer, with a partially built housing development on its hands, could either proceed and breach the condition leaving the council to decide whether enforcement action was expedient, or they could mothball the site until the business unit was constructed.

·        There had not been much housing and in particular affordable housing delivered in Bromyard for some time. Refusal would mean completed houses standing empty.

·        The condition only required the business units to be capable of occupation, not actually in operation.  There was a view that the unit that was under development could be completed.

·        As the two elements had passed into separate ownership it was not clear how the condition could be practical.

·        It was regrettable that the wishes of the Town Council to see the linkage between the construction of the business units and the housing development maintained were being undermined.

·        The council had sought to prioritise the co-location of housing and employment.  In principle the development should have met that aim but in practice it appeared that it would not.  That was unfortunate.

·        It was to be regretted that the Town Council had decided not to produce a Neighbourhood Plan.

The Acting Development Manager commented he could not countenance the prospect of housing, including affordable housing, standing empty.  The proposal to vary the condition was reasonable.  Whether the housing developer had erred in not foreseeing this issue and addressing it through a legal agreement at the outset was not relevant to the Committee’s consideration.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He considered that the application should be refused and the housing developer should be required to comply with the condition.  There appeared to be nothing to prevent a similar request to permit further development in advance of construction of the business unit coming forward.

Councillor Lloyd Hayes proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         The permission hereby granted is an amendment to planning permission 140285/O dated 18 August 2014 and, otherwise than is altered by this permission, the development shall be carried out in accordance with that planning permission and the conditions attached thereto.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with the requirements of Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The B1 commercial unit and its associated infrastructure as shown on approved plan 0609_11/d/3.01 shall be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the occupation of 35no.dwellings.

            Reason: To ensure that the employment use hereby permitted is brought into use and to secure a mixed form of sustainable development in accordance with Policy SS1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.