Proposed residential development of 5 dwellings, including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of an orchard and coppice strips, foul drainage treatment plants and other associated works.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed residential development of 5 dwellings, including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of an orchard and coppice strips, foul drainage treatment plants and other associated works.)

 

(Councillor WC Skelton had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Norman also left the meeting.)

 

The 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.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Hall of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Sue Powell, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Jones, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, there was the provision for the local ward member to speak on the application.  Councillor Skelton had had to leave the meeting.  Councillor Baker read a statement that he had been intending to deliver.

 

The statement contained the following principal comments:

 

·        Woonton was a small hamlet in the Ameley parish with 15 built residencies and 14 permissions recently granted. Whilst noting the absence of a five year housing land supply it was questioned what would represent proportionate growth.

·        There was strong local feeling against the application which had been developed without any reference to the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) working group or consultation with the community.  This was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·        The report stated that the Almeley NDP did not carry any weight for the purpose of decision making.   The NDP began regulation 16 consultation on June 27 2018.  Following local consultation the NDP had identified the proposed development sites in Ameley Parish and the application site was not one of them. In a matter of a few months the application would be refused as contrary to policy.

·        The view that no weight could be given to the NDP had been challenged.  There were also some concerns about the drainage issues.  A deferral was requested to permit these matters to be reviewed.

·        If the Committee was not minded to defer the matter the application could be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to a number of policies in the core strategy: HA2 and LD1.

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

 

·        The Lead Development Manager (LDM) clarified that the NDP commenced its Regulation 16 consultation on 27 June 2018.  It was a material consideration but had no weight in the planning balance.

With reference to housing approvals already granted in Woonton and what constituted proportionate growth, he also confirmed that the core strategy’s indicative minimum requirement for homes was calculated in relation to Almeley Parish as a whole.

·        In response to a question of the five year housing land supply the LDM confirmed that the calculation was produced annually and the supply as at April 2017 had been 4.54 years.  Information was being collated to produce the April 2018 calculation.

 

A request was made that the presentation of this information in reports to the Committee should be clarified and made consistent.

 

·        The location was appropriate for development and in keeping with the locality.   Five dwellings would not have a significant impact and would represent proportionate growth.  The scheme was in the right position, of low density and of good design.

·        The Drainage Manager had no objection and it should be feasible to accommodate 5 additional properties.

·        In response to a request for further assurance on the disposal of waste water the Planning Officer (PO) commented that tests had been undertaken and the Drainage Manager was content that foul and surface water could be disposed of adequately.  In terms of groundwater quality Natural England had no objection to the proposal.  The Conservation Manager (ecology) also had no objection.

·        It was asked if steps to be taken to ensure that the entrance and turning head could be designed to prevent further development. The PO commented that the access had been designed to support the five dwellings.  The constraints of the site and the character of the landscape militated against further development. 

·        The loss of grade 2 agricultural land was to be regretted and the NPPF referred to safeguarding such land.

·        Several members indicated that they could not identify grounds for refusal.

The LDM commented that the scheme was low density, of good design and used appropriate materials.  Whilst not of weight at its current stage once approved the Almeley NDP would be of benefit in determining any further applications for development.

 

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor Lloyd-Hayes seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

 

1.         C01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

 

2.         C08 - Development in accordance with approved plans (as amended)

 

3.         C13 - Samples of external materials (to include full details of doors and windows)

 

4.         C65 - Removal of permitted development rights

 

5.         C96 - Landscaping Scheme

 

6.         C97 - Landscaping scheme implementation

 

7.         C99 – Tree Planting

 

8.         CA1 – Landscape Management Plan

 

9.         CAP - Off site works (footway provision within highways land)

 

10.       CAB - Visibility Splays – 2.4m (X distance) x 33m (Y distance)

 

11.       CAC - Visibility over frontage (2 metres)

 

12.       CAE - Vehicular access construction

 

13.       CAH - Driveway gradient

 

14.       CAL – Access, turning area and parking

 

15.       CAZ – Parking for site operatives

 

16.       Nature Conservation – Ecology Protection and Mitigation

 

            The ecological protection, mitigation and working methods scheme as recommended in the Ecological Report by Churton Ecology dated September 2017 shall be implemented in full as stated unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, NERC 2006

 

17.       Nature Conservation – Enhancement

 

            Prior to commencement of the development, a detailed habitat enhancement scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, NERC 2006

 

18.       CCK - Details of slab levels

 

19.       CBK – Restriction of hours during construction

 

20.       CBM – Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

21.       CBO – Scheme of surface water drainage disposal

 

22.       No access gates/doors shall be installed on the shared access hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy MT1 of 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. 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.         I05 - No drainage to discharge to highway

 

3.         I08 – Section 278 agreement

 

4.         I09 – Private apparatus within highway

 

5.         I11 – Mud on highway

 

6.         The habitat enhancement plan, based on the Ecological Report by Churton Ecology dated September 2017 should include details and locations of any proposed Biodiversity/Habitat enhancements as referred to in NPPF and HC Core Strategy. At a minimum we would be looking for proposals to enhance bat roosting, bird nesting and invertebrate/pollinator homes to be incorporated in to the new buildings as well as consideration for hedgehog houses and hedgehog movement within the landscaping/boundary features. No external lighting should illuminate any of the enhancements or boundary features beyond any existing illumination levels and all lighting on the development should support the Dark Skies initiative.

 

7.         The landscaping plan should include full details of all proposed tree, shrub and hedge planting plus any new or reseeding of grass areas. Locally typical, native species with stock of local provenance should be used where practicable. I Details supplied should include details of native species mix, stock specification, planting and protection methodology and a 5 year establishment and subsequent 5 year maintenance plan. Elder, Ivy and Dog Rose are not considered as appropriate ‘woody’ species to be included in the hedge. Hornbeam should normally be used instead of Beech. ‘Exotic’ species will only be considered where they are appropriate to existing established planting and landscape character (eg historic parkland or in an ‘urban’ environment). All orchard planting should utilise very vigorous ‘standard’ rootstocks and be of historic, locally characteristic varieties with relevant Traditional’ Standard’ Tree spacing, support and protection (Natural England’s Technical Information Notes are helpful guidance). As detailed in the Council’s Highway Design Guide for New Developments no thorny species should be planted immediately adjacent (allowing for normal growth) to a footway/public footpath/pavement or within 3m of a cycleway.

 

8.         I33 – Wildlife General

 

9.         I35 – Highways Design Guide and Specification