Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings. 

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

(Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings.)

(Councillor Hunt was not present during consideration of part of this application and accordingly did not vote upon it.  Councillor Stone 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 E Molloy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He referenced the objections from 15 local residents and Brimfield and Little Hereford Group Parish Council.  He noted that although a representative of the Parish Council had been unable to attend the meeting the Parish Council had submitted additional representations in objection to the proposal as set out in the schedule of updates.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy BLH5 3a of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        Neighbours would be adversely affected by the access, traffic, gradient and light pollution.

·        Suitable surface water run-off procedures had not been proposed.

·        The need to use cess pits would lead to increased traffic movements to empty them, to the detriment of neighbours.

·        The C1053, the access road, was narrow and had been a safety concern to residents for some time.  There was no footpath and it was well used by pedestrians. The road was also used by cyclists, riders along with the neighbouring footpaths.  The parish council had requested warning signs.

·        The proposal would increase the tanker journeys to empty the cess pits – some 190 trips per annum to the detriment of the environment and road safety.

·        The report proposed that control would need to be imposed through a section 106 agreement to ensure that the cesspools were emptied at a suitable disposal site. It was questioned how effective this would be and concern expressed about the risk to public health and the environment.

·        He questioned whether the amount of surface water run-off was being underestimated, mindful of climate change.  There had been instances of flooding.

·        The report noted that the applicant must establish the adjacent landowner as they were the riparian of the watercourse and ensure that permission was obtained for disposal of water into this watercourse. It was questioned how this would be actioned.

·        The proportionate housing growth target for the area had been achieved.

·        He welcomed the proposal that 2 of the 4 proposed dwellings would be bungalows.  The proposal did also comply with policy BLH5 of the NDP accepting that it was adjacent to the settlement.

·        The economic and social benefits from the development would be modest. There was a successful pub but the church and village hall could only be reached by car or bicycle down the busy A456.  It was too dangerous by foot.  There were therefore very few local facilities.  That was why development had taken place in Brimfield rather than in Little Hereford.  The environmental impact would probably be negative, with more light pollution, loss of hedgerow and potentially more flooding.

·        The absence of a five year housing land supply strengthened the case for the application.  However, regard should be had to the concerns of local residents and the parish council, especially those relating to highway safety and drainage issues.

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

·        Severe reservations were expressed about the use of cess pools.  The need to empty the pools regularly created a public health risk from the diesel emissions of the tankers.  This was contrary to policy SS1.  The implications for water quality also appeared contrary to policy SD4.

·        The National Design Guide suggested water features should be a feature of development. There were no proposals to capture rain water on a site with drainage and flooding issues.

·        A section of the Leominster-Stourport canal would be affected by the proposal.  It was also suggested that a body of water would be retained above the site by the canal lining.

·        A concern was expressed about the potential impact on the Teme catchment area, given the poor natural drainage.

·        The site was low lying.  The viability of the drainage proposals was questioned.  It was suggested the site was simply not suitable for development.

·        The provision of two modest bungalows was a welcome feature.

·        Policy SS6 referenced flooding issues and the preservation of the historic environment and heritage assets.

·        It was unclear how the site, which was steeply sloping, would sit in the landscape, potentially bringing the proposal into conflict with policy LD1. 

·        The site was in flood zone 2 with high ground water.

·        There were no objections from the statutory consultees, although it was noted that they had suggested a number of conditions.

·        Officers had addressed the objections raised by the parish council. 

·        The report considered the development complied with policy RA2 and was acceptable in principle.

Following discussion and an adjournment the following reasons were advanced for refusing the application: that the proportionate growth in the neighbourhood area meant that there were not exceptional circumstances to justify the use of cess pools; their use did not represent sustainable development and this outweighed the moderate benefit of providing 4 additional dwellings.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policies SS1, SD4 the NPPF, LD4 – impact on the historic environment, and SS6 – risk of flooding.

The Lead Development Manager referred to the Transportation Manager’s comments in the schedule of updates that the proposal would generate an extra 24 tanker movements a year and noted the further correspondence on this point received from the applicant’s agent also included in the update.  He observed the sealed cess-pits were proposed.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the Transportation Manager had recently confirmed that 196 additional tanker movements would be involved.  He remained concerned by the tanker movements, the impact of the proposal on road safety, loss of hedgerow, no specific plans for the disposal of surface water, effect on residential amenity and the lack of local facilities and the impact on the canal site.  The disadvantages of the proposal outweighed the benefits. If the Committee was minded to approve the application stronger conditions were required for surface water drainage, run-off and sewerage disposal.  This included confirmation that permission had been obtained for disposal of water into the watercourse. Traffic calming measures would also need to be in place on the access road.

Councillor Fagan proposed and Councillor Watson seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the proportionate growth in the neighbourhood area meant that there were not exceptional circumstances to justify the use of cess pools; their use did not represent sustainable development and this outweighed the moderate benefit of providing 4 additional dwellings.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policies SS1, SD4 the NPPF, LD4 – impact on the historic environment, and SS6 – risk of flooding.

The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proportionate growth in the neighbourhood area meant that there were not exceptional circumstances to justify the use of cess pools; their use did not represent sustainable development and this outweighed the moderate benefit of providing 4 additional dwellings.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policies SS1, SD4 the NPPF, LD4 – impact on the historic environment, and SS6 – risk of flooding and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.