Erection of 2 dwellings and associated garaging and revised vehicular access for planning approval 180075/F.

 

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

 

(Erection of 2 dwellings and associated garaging and  revised vehicular access for planning approval 180075/F.)

 

The Senior 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.

It was noted that, as reported in the update, Garway Parish Council had confirmed that they no longer objected to the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Joseph, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, was unable to attend the meeting.  The Chairperson read out a statement he had submitted.

The statement contained the following principal comments:

·        The only way for rural villages such as Garway to survive was to allow some development. Garway was identified as a settlement in the Core strategy.  It had a popular primary school, a public house and a garage. In many ways it was an excellent place for development.

·        His principal concern related to the type of house being proposed.  Garway needed affordable homes, for young families looking for their first property.  Whilst the application was for two semi-detached properties they were unlikely to be “affordable”. The five dwellings adjoining were larger and better described as ‘executive’.

·        The proposed development was outside the settlement boundary in the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan. The site was on the very edge of what might be considered Garway village.

·        In relation to landscaping he requested that conditions be applied to safeguard the stunning views particularly from the adjacent public right of way.

·        If the application had been for affordable houses he would not have requested that it be considered by the Committee.  He was concerned the proposal would encourage an increasingly aged population to move to the county’s rural villages.  That demographic was unlikely to support the local services that it was hoped to retain.

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

·        It was asked whether a footpath proposed on the site could be designated as a public right of way as recommended by the Ramblers Association at the end of their representations set out at paragraph 5.2 of the report.

The Development Manager commented that a public right of way existed and was not materially affected by the development.  However, whilst a condition would not be appropriate, the proposal in paragraph 5.2 could be explored with the applicant.

·        It was asked whether a mature sycamore tree referenced in the Conservation Manager (Arboraculturist’s) comments at paragraph 4.5 of the report could be protected with a tree preservation order.  Clarification was also sought on the future management of that area.

The Development Manager commented that granting planning permission would ensure some protection for the tree.  The possibility of a tree preservation order could be explored.

·        The proposal adjoined a previously approved scheme for five dwellings.

·        It was unfortunate that the developments did not include affordable housing as some of the representations requested.

·        The report stated that limited weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan. The site was outside the settlement boundary and it was asked why the application site did not therefore fall to be considered against policy RA3 rather than RA2.

·        It was also asked whether a local housing needs survey had been undertaken and what that indicated.

The Development Manager commented that it was recommended that greater, significant, weight should be given to policy RA2 rather than to the NDP and the settlement boundary contained within it which attracted limited weight.

In terms of housing need, in the absence of an NDP regard had to be had to the Ross on Wye Housing Market Assessment.  That had identified an overriding requirement for 3 bedroom dwellings.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 11 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

 

1.         C01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

2.         C07 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

           

3.         C13 Samples of external materials

           

4.         C96 Landscaping scheme

           

5.         C97 Landscaping scheme  implementation

           

6.         C90 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

           

7.         CCK Slab level details

           

8.         CC2 External lighting

           

9.         CBO Scheme for surface water disposal

           

10.       All foul water shall discharge through connection to new private foul water treatment system with final outfall to suitable soakaway drainage fields on land under the applicant’s control; and all surface water shall discharge to appropriate SuDS or Soakaway features.

 

            Reason: In order to comply with Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), National Planning Policy Framework, NERC Act (2006), NPPF (2018) and Herefordshire Council Core Strategy (2015) policies LD2, SD3 and SD4.

           

11.       CE6 Efficient use of water

           

12.       C65 Removal of permitted development rights

           

13.       CAB Visibility splays

           

14.       CAH Driveway gradient

           

15.       CAP Junction improvement/off site works

           

16.       CAJ Parking - estate development (more than one house)

           

17.       CAK Parking and turning

           

18.       CAS Road completion in 2 years

           

19.       CAT Wheel washing

           

20.       CAZ Parking for site operatives

           

21.       The ecological protection, mitigation, compensation and working methods scheme including the Habitat Enhancement Strategy and Management Plan, as recommended in the reports by Janet Lomas dated November 2017 shall be implemented in full as stated unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Biodiversity enhancements shall be maintained hereafter as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

 

            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.

 

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. 

 

2.         I11 Mud on highway

 

3.         I09 Private apparatus within highway

 

4.         I45 Works within the highway

 

5.         I05 No drainage to discharge to highway

 

6.         I43 Protection of visibility splays on private land

 

7.         I47 Drainage other than highway system

 

8.         I35 Highways design guide and specification

 

9.         I18 Rights of way