Proposed erection of four dwellings and associated works.

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

(Councillor Foxton was not present during consideration of this application. Councillor Swinglehurst fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Lodge, of Llangarron Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr P Harries, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent, and Mrs F Farr, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There was a high level of objection from local people to the application.  However, a number of letters had also been received in support. The objectors, in the main lived closest to the site and would be most affected.

·        Letters in support of the proposal, principally felt that it was consistent with policy, and would breathe new life into the village.  The negative impact had been exaggerated.  The applicant had been willing to take on board comments and amend the plans.  The site was well located – close to the village amenities, well designed and would contribute positively to the village. 

·        However objectors considered the development would have a negative impact on the character of the settlement, be unacceptable in form, design, scale and location and have a negative impact on neighbouring properties. 

·        Trecilla Court (House) was understood to be being considered for listing by English Heritage and even without listing was due some regard as an undesignated heritage asset along with the cluster of curtilage buildings.  Any potential impact on the grade 1 listed church, St Deinsts and Little Trecilla also needed to be considered and whether or not that impact would be contrary to policy LD4 to protect, conserve and if possible enhance historic assets. 

·        Those nearest the site felt that the development would have an impact on their residential amenity – either though overlooking or disruption during the build phase.  The height of the plot in relation to those properties raised the concern that the ridge and eaves height, in context, would be overbearing.  The conservation officer had noted this point.

·        There was concern that the application would erode the pattern of dispersed sandstone settlement characteristic of Llangarron through infill and that the edge of the built environment was at Trecilla House and outbuildings.

·        Planning permissions had recently been granted for 4 houses in the immediate locality. There was concern that the proposal would make the road dangerous to use and that the cumulative impact on the local road network would be severe.   Lack of sufficient parking at the Church and Garron Centre worsened the problem along the narrow and twisting lane restricting visibility and making it difficult to pass. 

·        Drainage was a concern due to the steepness of the site and, although the land drainage officer had raised no objection, local objectors considered that the development would increase flooding risk, questioned the technical solution and future maintenance.

·        The houses were 3 and 4 bed, No2 beds were provided as starter homes.  This did not contribute positively to the local housing mix.

·        In combination with the proposed site there were 7 houses proposed by the same applicant across the two sites.  Because it was below the benchmark there was no requirement for affordable housing or a S106 agreement.  Clarification was requested on whether or not some developer contribution could be sought

·        There was concern that the engineering of the access road and the balance of the land meant that further development was intended.  It was asked whether anything could be done to address this point.

·        The loss of a section of roadside hedgerow was to be regretted.  While the hedgerow was to  be replaced and additional planting was planned it was essential that any screening planting or planting offered in mitigation for this loss was properly conditioned, planted as promised and maintained in perpetuity. 

·        It was noted regarding the sustainability appraisal of this project that the highest standards of U value in building regulations were exceeded.  Locally sourced materials were to be used wherever possible making this, from a sustainability point of view, a good example of carbon conscious construction.

·        The parish as a whole had met the minimum housing target.  Whilst Llangarron was a settlement considered to be appropriate for proportionate growth in the Core Strategy the policy also stated that proposals would be expected to demonstrate particular attention to the form, layout, character and setting of the site and its location in the settlement and/or result in development that contributes to or is essential to the social well being of the settlement concerned; that they result in the development of high quality, sustainable schemes which are appropriate to their context and make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and its landscape setting and that they result in the delivery of the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular settlements.

·        Objectors considered the proposal it failed to meet these criteria and given that the minimum housing numbers had already been exceeded there was no reason for these policies not to carry full weight in the planning balance.

·        The site was close to the church, community centre and village hall but overall Llangarron did not have services.  There was no shop, school or pub and an infrequent bus service.  Local residents feared strongly that their village would be ruined by traffic and loss of tranquillity.  They particularly feared further future development of the site.

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

·        The Development Manager confirmed that a formal hedgerow survey had not been undertaken.  However, the Conservation Manager (Ecology) had no objection to the application.

·        A view was expressed that the application was contrary to policy SS4, without the infrastructure required to provide access to services also referencing paragraphs 3.62 and 3.63 of the Core strategy relating to access to services and provision of community infrastructure.

·        There was concern that the ground levels would mean the development would have an adverse effect on Little Trescilla a house opposite the development, with nuisance from headlights from cars accessing the development.

·        There were no passing places on the lane so the proposed entrance, directly opposite Little Trescilla would become one.

·        There was no shop, no pub, no school and a limited bus service.

·        The removal of a stretch of hedge was just one example of the environmental damage the application would cause. The environmentally friendly design of the dwellings did not provide sufficient compensation.

·        None of the statutory consultees objected to the application.

·        The access roads were narrow but that in itself was not sufficient reason to refuse the application.

·        The density of development would not have an adverse impact.

·        The absence of services was also not in itself sufficient reason to refuse the application.

·        A concern was expressed about the impact on the landscape.  The Development Manager confirmed that there had not been an archaeological survey or an historic landscape assessment.  The Lead Development Manager commented that no constraints on the site were shown on the council’s constraints map.

·        The development would cause harm but the benefits outweighed that harm.

The Lead Development Manager highlighted that there had been no objections from the statutory consultees.  The Core Strategy identified the settlement as one where proportionate housing development was appropriate.  He cautioned that he did not consider the reasons advanced for refusal would be sustainable at appeal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that the decision was a finely balanced one.  She suggested that in reviewing the core strategy the sustainability of settlements such as Llangarron should be revisited.

A motion that the application be refused was lost.

Councillor Hunt proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 5 votes in favour, 3 against and 4 abstentions.

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

 

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

           

 

2.         C06 - Development in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. P2.003 Rev C, 010 Rev C, 020 Rev B, 100 Rev B, 101 Rev A, 102 Rev A, 103 Rev A, 1396 C06, Rev B, the Sustainability  Statement PF 301, the Flood Risk and Drainage Statement March 2019 (as qualified by the email sent 23 May 2019) and the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 21 February 2019)

 

3.         C13 - Samples of external materials

 

4.         C65 - Removal of permitted development rights (Class E)

 

5.         CK3 - Landscape Scheme

 

6.         CK4 – Implementation

 

7.         CAB - Visibility Splays 38 x 2.4m

 

8.         CAD - Access gates

 

9.         CAE - Vehicular access construction

 

10.       CAH - Driveway gradient

 

11.       CAI - Parking – single/shared private drives

 

12.       CAJ - Parking - Estates

 

13.       CAT - Construction Management Plan

 

14.       CB2 - Secure covered cycle parking provision

           

15.       CBK - Restriction of hours during construction

 

16.       Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved an Adoption and Maintenance Schedule relating to the future maintenance of the approved foul and surface water drainage arrangement shown on Drawing No.  1396 C06, Rev B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The maintenance of the drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details thereafter

            Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy SD3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

17.       CCK - Details of slab levels

 

18        All foul water shall discharge through connection to new plot specific private foul water      treatment systems with final outfall to suitable soakaway drainage field on land within each plot; and all surface water shall discharge to appropriate soakaway systems; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

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

 

19        The ecological protection, mitigation, compensation and working methods scheme including the           Biodiversity net gain enhancements, as recommended in the ecology report by AVA Ecology dated February 2019 shall be implemented and hereafter maintained in full as stated unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. No external lighting should          illuminate any boundary feature, adjacent habitat or area around the approved mitigation or any biodiversity net gain enhancement features.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the             Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Habitats & Species Regulations 2018 (as amended), Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy, National Planning Policy Framework  and NERC Act 2006.

 

20.       CE6 - Efficient use of water

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         IP2 - Application Approved Following Revisions

 

2.         I11 - Mud on highway

 

3.         I09 - Private apparatus within the highway (Compliance with the New  Roads and Streetworks Act 1991, the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Highways Act 1980)

 

4.         I45 - Works within the highway (Compliance with the Highways Act 1980 and the Traffic Management Act 2004)

 

5.         I35 - Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

6.         I47 - Drainage other than via highway system

 

7.         I05 - No drainage to discharge to highway