Residential development (300 Dwellings) including access from Roman Road, essential infrastructure, open space, balancing pond, landscaping, roads, parking, footpaths, cycleway and engineering, earth works.

Residential development (300 dwellings) including access from Roman Road, essential infrastructure, open space, balancing pond, landscaping, roads, parking, footpaths, cycleway and engineering, earth works.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

 

§      Welsh Water had removed their objection subject to conditions relating to adequate on site foul drainage and a condition or additional clause drawn into the Section 106 Agreement preventing occupation of any dwellings until the on and off site foul drainage infrastructure had been installed; the extent of the off site works would need to be informed by a hydraulic modelling exercise funded by the developers.

 

§      Correspondence had been received from Sport England.  Off site cycle links with existing / proposed recreation facilities were welcomed and it was suggested that secure cycle parking should be made available to each dwelling. Continuing concerns expressed in relation to the off-site recreation contribution and whether this was adequate to meet the identified need for playing pitches north of the river. Their objection was therefore maintained.

 

§      A letter had been received commenting that some land should be made available for environmentally friendly self-build housing.

 

§      A letter had been received from the Headteacher of Barrs Court School which highlighted the challenges faced by the school, as the only secondary school in the County catering specifically for pupils with severe and multiple learning difficulties, and suggested that a contribution should be made towards the Hydrosense appeal which sought funds for a new building to house a range of specialist facilities.

 

§      A further letter had been received from Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council which re-iterated previous concerns, particularly regarding foul drainage and road capacity, and advised that, unless infrastructure could be provided for the best interests of the community, the Parish Council could not support the application.

 

§      An e-mail had been received from Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon suggesting that the skate park contribution should be increased to £100,000 and education contribution should be enhanced with £30,000 towards the wind turbine at Whitecross School and £75,000 for a new portacabin at Trinity School to enable the nursery to be extended.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that no further comments had been received from the Head of Education on this matter.

 

§      It was reported that further meetings had taken place with regard to affordable housing provision and, as a result and with full support of Strategic Housing, the mix had now changed to 65% rented and 35% shared ownership with no low cost discount market housing; it was noted that this form of housing was not proving to be affordable on other sites where it had been negotiated.

 

§      It was also reported that a further letter had been received from the applicants shortly before the Sub-Committee meeting and was summarised as follows:

 

w        The charge for any existing residents to connect to the new foul drainage system would be related to the costs of works only and there would be no ‘ransom’ charge.

 

w        Crest would also not resist connections until the new foul infrastructure had been adopted but Welsh Water may do.

 

w        With regard to the sustainability of the site, Crest stressed that it was an industry leader in constructing buildings with high standards of energy efficiency and the development would meet if not exceed the standards contained in the Sub-Committee report and proposed Section 106 Agreement.

 

w        It was also reported that Crest was aware of recent further requests for additional contributions and, therefore, offered two mechanisms by which the contributions could be increased.  The first was to re-distribute the £25,000 plus £10,000 maintenance charge allocated for public art to another use.  The second was to change the affordable housing mix from 65/35 to 60/40 which would make a further £180,000 available for a use reasonably related to the development such as education.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the latter suggestion did not have the support of Strategic Housing.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Owen spoke on behalf of Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, Mr. Holland spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Hodgson spoke in support of the application.

 

Following comments made by the public speakers, the Principal Planning Officer responded as follows:

 

§      Planning permission was sought for the construction of 300 dwellings but full details of the types of units to be provided had not been listed in the application.  As an outline application, all matters were reserved for future consideration with the exception of the means of access to the site.  The number of dwellings would be restricted to 300 through conditions.

 

§      The concerns that had been raised about foul drainage would be fully explored through the study required by Welsh Water and would be addressed through the Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

 

§      In  terms of ecology, the creation of a surface water balancing pond in an area of land north of the development site would mitigate some of the ecological impact of the development and enhance bio-diversity.

 

§      Suggestions about measures to discourage the ‘rat running’ of vehicles along Munstone Road could be further discussed and negotiated with the developers; as an outline planning application, the specific road layout had not been determined at that stage.

 

§      The means of access to the site had been considered by independent consultants for the Council, the Highways Agency and the developers and all had determined that a new signalised junction arrangement would be the optimum solution.

 

§      It was noted that numerous comments had been made about the need for improvements to Munstone Road, College Road and Old School Lane.  Whilst the development could not be expected to resolve all highway problems in the area, the Section 106 Agreement would require off-site junction and highway works.

 

Councillor R.M. Wilson commented that he had been asked to convey a number of issues raised by local residents to the Sub-Committee, some of the matters raised are outlined below:

 

·       It was noted that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) process had not yet been completed and this application could be considered premature.

 

·       The Section 106 Agreement was inadequate and greater emphasis should be given to infrastructure improvements within the Parish, particularly to Roman Road, Attwood Lane and Munstone Road.

 

·       Given the volumes of traffic in the locality and potential highway safety problems, improvements were needed to minimise congestion and prevent ‘rat running’.

 

·       The traffic situation in the vicinity of the Royal National College for the Blind needed to be addressed.

 

·       A pedestrian crossing on the A49 was needed to enable the safe passage of residents to the Church and Village Hall at Holmer.

 

·       Funding should be provided for all schools in the catchment area, including Barrs Court School.

 

·       Given the problems on the Wentworth Park estate, more detailed information was needed on the foul and surface water drainage arrangements.

 

·       A concern was expressed that the area for development was greater than that indicated in the UDP.

 

·       The archaeological importance of the land should be investigated prior to development.

 

Councillor Wilson also expressed his own views that: the access arrangements should not hinder traffic using the A4103 Roman Road; the Section 106 Agreement was inappropriate and should be reconsidered; appropriate speed limits were needed; contributions should be concentrated on enhancements within the Ward; and funding for the skate park should be redirected to other matters, particularly as land had already been made available to Hereford City Council for the skate park.

 

Councillor W.J. Walling commented that the affordable housing should be spread throughout the development to prevent these dwellings being perceived as separate to the rest of the estate.

 

Councillor P.J. Edwards acknowledged that outline planning permission was sought but felt that the application was premature and that insufficient information had been made available to the Sub-Committee.  He proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal failed to address the essential infrastructure requirements and was contrary a number of policies in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and South Herefordshire District Local plan.  He drew attention to references in the report to ‘no comments received’ from statutory consultees and to additional information and plans awaited from the developers.  He commented that the proposed contributions were inadequate and that detailed consideration of both existing and future infrastructure needs was required.  He felt it unacceptable that matters relating to electricity cabling, sewerage provision and highway improvements were still outstanding.  He also felt that the proposed £138,000 contribution towards the cost of improving the existing railway bridge on Roman Road was unsatisfactory and would not advance the improvements envisaged by the Local Plan Inspector.

 

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews felt that the contributions proposed in the Section 106 Agreement should be allocated to relevant schools in the catchment area, including Barrs Court School.  She commented on the need for the affordable housing to be of appropriate types, with greater emphasis on family homes rather than flats.  She also commented that the contribution to the skate park would help to provide a much needed recreational facility for the 12-18 age group.

 

In response to points raised by Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that: there were differences of opinion about the most appropriate means to discourage ‘rat running’ on roads in the locality; the location of the proposed emergency access could be reviewed with the developers; the allocation of the contributions could be reviewed in order to provide funding towards educational facilities at Barrs Court School; a watching brief would be required in respect of archaeology; a mix of affordable housing types would be provided, with some flats and a high proportion of family dwellings; the Sub-Committee could consider priorities for off-site junction and highway works; the contribution of £138,000 towards the cost of providing a new bridge had been identified as a proportionate figure arising from the traffic impact of the development (the estimated total cost of a new bridge was given as £2.5m); the costs associated with re-routing of electricity cables which crossed the development were explained; and none of the key consultees had raised any objections in principle subject to conditions.

 

Councillor R.I. Matthews felt that the development should be restricted to the site identified in the UDP and that the proposed balancing pond outside this area should not be considered as amenity space.  He expressed concerns about the way in which the proposed contributions and allocations had been identified.  He commented that, if a substantial contribution could not be secured towards the cost of providing a new bridge, the sums should be allocated towards viable infrastructure improvements.  He felt that the current proposals were inadequate and the application should be refused.

 

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell emphasised the need for planning gain to be relevant to the needs of the local area involved.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox outlined the potential impact of the development on traffic issues in the Aylestone Ward and, given the concerns raised about the perceived inadequacy of the proposed infrastructure improvements, proposed that consideration of the application be deferred for further discussions and negotiations between the developers and senior officers.  He noted that contribution from each dwelling towards infrastructure improvements would be less than the Stamp Duty paid on many of the properties and felt this situation was totally inadequate.  He commented that £138,000 was not enough to bring forward improvements to the railway bridge and there was a risk that this amount would be given back to the developers after ten years.  Given this possibility and the concerns expressed by local residents, he suggested that funds would be better allocated towards junction and highway works on College Road and Old School Lane.  He concurred with other Members that funds should be provided for Barrs Court School but felt that this should be an additional contribution by the developers.  He commented that, at a public display and consultation meeting, a view had been expressed that the RNCB development scheme would bring about the necessary improvements to the College Road/Venns Lane/Old School Lane junction but in actual fact further contributions were needed to enhance the traffic control situation in this area.  He also noted the accident history at the Munstone Road/College Road junction and the Attwood Road/Old School Lane junction and commented on the need for improvements to these routes.

 

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes noted that there was significant demand for housing in this part of Hereford.  She commended officers for the report and noted that not all the problems in the area could be resolved by this one application.  She felt that contributions should not be too narrowly focussed and, in particular, welcomed the suggested contribution towards Barrs Court School.  In response to earlier comments, Councillor Mrs. Lloyd-Hayes felt that the proposed contribution towards a skate park was justified given that a number of facilities for younger people in the north of the city had been closed in recent years.  She welcomed the comments of Welsh Water and noted the ongoing work to address outstanding issues.

 

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas felt that it was regrettable that, due to the current Code of Conduct, the Local Ward Member was unable to contribute to the debate.  He felt that the level of contributions proposed were inadequate and that further discussions should be held with the developer to resolve the areas of concern.

 

The Central Team Leader commented that deferral for further negotiations might not achieve significant additional contributions but suggested that it would be helpful if Members gave Officers a steer with regard to the priorities for the allocation of the developer contributions identified.

 

A motion to defer consideration of the application was lost.  Then a motion to refuse the application was lost.  The recommendation to approve was then agreed with  Officers agreeing to discuss the specific allocation of contributions with the developer.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.      Subject to there being no objection from Sport England by the end of the consultation period and the Traffic Manager’s concerns being addressed.

 

2.      The application be referred to the Government Office for the West Midlands under the Departure Procedures.

 

3.      Subject to the Secretary of State confirming that she does not intend to call the application in, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 covering the matters detailed in the Heads of Terms appended to this report and any additional matters that he considers necessary and appropriate.

 

4.      Upon completion of the above mentioned Planning Obligation, the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to conditions.

 

Conditions

 

Due to the scale of the development, the wording of the conditions are still being discussed and agreed with the applicants.  However, conditions will be included to cover the following:

 

• Standard outline conditions regarding commencement and submission of reserved matters details.
• Phasing of the development and phasing of the construction of affordable housing.
• Access and internal road construction including traffic calming and parking provision.
• Off site junction and highway works.
• A residential travel plan.
• Tree and hedgerow protection and a landscape and biodiversity maintenance and management plan.
• Further ecological surveys.
• Foul and surface water drainage to include a restriction that no development can commence until the drainage works have been agreed by the Council and Welsh Water.
• Restriction on construction times, strategy for minimising dust and noise during construction.
• Archaeological watching brief.
• Details of boundary treatments, materials, site and slab levels, hard landscaping, lighting.
• Specification for the play areas.
• Restriction on the number of dwellings to 300.

 

[Note: In accordance with Constitution SO 5.10.2, Councillor D.B. Wilcox wished it to be recorded that he voted against approval of this application.]