Erection of 20 dwellings and associated parking, roadworks, services and drainage.

Erection of 20 dwellings and associated parking, roadworks, services and drainage.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             A correction was made to paragraph 5.2.15 of the report as the speed limit in Withies Road was already 30mph.

§             An amendment to the Section 106 Heads of Terms was recommended.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Soutar spoke on behalf of Withington Parish Council and Mr. Richmond and Mr. Packman spoke in objection to the application.

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the layout had been largely dictated by the access restrictions, as only a single point of access was deemed acceptable in highway safety terms.  This resulted in rear gardens running along the highway boundary, although the visual impact would be mitigated by some of the houses having a ‘double frontage’ appearance.  It was reported that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) required sites outside of Hereford and the Market Towns to deliver residential development at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare and this development equated to 35.7 units per hectare.  It was not considered that the density was unacceptable in this location or inappropriate for the character of the area.  The Principal Planning Officer added that Withington, as it was classed as a main village, was deemed to have capacity to accommodate additional residential development.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about the design approach and felt that, in its current form, the application represented an over intensive form of development in this location and would have detrimental impact on residential amenities.  He felt that the rear gardens running along the highway boundary would damage the character and appearance of the street scene and the locality, especially if boundary treatments and ancillary structures were not strictly controlled.  He also expressed concerns about the potential impact of increased activity on highway and pedestrian safety, particularly given the speed of traffic along Withies Road.  He noted the significant increase in the number of dwellings in the village in recent years and commented on the need for adequate infrastructure, parking and play space facilities.

In response to the Local Ward Members concerns, the Principal Planning Officer advised that: recommended condition 6 would remove permitted development rights to safeguard the appearance of the development; it was anticipated that a native hedgerow could be translocated to provide additional natural screening and a softer boundary to the highway; and the Section 106 Agreement would require a contribution towards off site open space, sport and recreation for the use of the village as a whole.

Councillor RI Matthews felt that the design, density and layout were unacceptable.  He also commented on the general lack of landscaping and potential visual impact of the development.  Other members expressed similar views.

In response to a question from Councillor AM Toon, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the meaning of ‘main village’ as defined in the UDP and advised that local amenities and access to public transport would have been considered as part of the UDP process.  Councillor Toon commented on difficulties experienced in the area with interruptions to the electricity supply, apparently due to demand from recent residential developments, and suggested that this matter be clarified with the relevant utility provider.

In response to a question from Councillor GFM Dawe, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the on and off site ecology considerations.

Councillor PA Andrews felt that consideration of the application should be deferred to allow for further discussions and negotiations in relation to the design, density and layout of the development.  This suggestion was supported by a number of members.  Councillor Greenow suggested that a number of units be removed from the proposal but the Head of Planning Services, whilst acknowledging the principal areas of concern, emphasised the need for flexibility.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred for further discussions regarding layout, density and design.