A development of 151 dwellings consisting of 2,3,4 & 5 bedroom houses with 1+2 bedroom apartments (Phase 3).

Ward: St. Martins & Hinton

A development of 151 dwellings consisting of 2,3,4 & 5 bedroom houses with 1+2 bedroom apartments (Phase 3).

The following updates were reported:

·       Amended plans had been received seeking to address the concerns of officers but there had been insufficient time to assess the detail and therefore the recommendation remained one of delegated approval as set out in the report.

·       Paragraph 6.17 of the report was incorrect in that the total area of open space, sport and recreation facilities was 4.15 hectares and not 2.45 hectares as stated.

·       The Highways Agency had withdrawn their objection following the receipt of additional information to justify the additional level of parking proposed.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillor AT Oliver, who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of this item, addressed the Sub-Committee before withdrawing from the meeting for the ensuing debate and vote.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Owen spoke on behalf of Lower Bullingham Parish Council.

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, noted that the principle and density of development had been established in the outline planning permissions and through the Unitary Development Plan [UDP] process.  Councillor Attfield commented that there would be some community benefits, particularly in terms of affordable housing and play areas, but noted that the contributions would have been greater if this was an entirely new proposal.  She expressed concerns about additional traffic queuing on Bullingham Lane but noted that traffic lights on the junction with the A49 should mitigate some of the problems; although it was noted that this would have a consequential impact on the free flow of traffic on the A49.  Councillor Attfield also expressed concerns about the increasing urbanisation of this area without the necessary infrastructure to support it.

Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, drew attention to the representation from Hereford City Council stating that it ‘Objects to the over development of this site that will have an adverse effect on the already over used A49’.  Given the existing problems with the A49, he felt that further large-scale development in this area was unsustainable.  He commented on drainage and flooding problems associated with the Withy Brook and suggested that an additional condition should be added to any planning permission granted requiring the brook to be cleared out at least once a year.  He reported on the parking problems already being experienced in the area, resulting from the high density of development, and felt that a minimum of two spaces per unit was necessary.  It was noted that, initially, the local community had been told that 500 houses would be constructed.  Now that the total would be over 600 houses, Councillor Chappell felt that the developer contributions towards community infrastructure should be enhanced.

Councillor AT Oliver commented on the difficulty of turning right from Bullingham Lane onto the A49 and was surprised that the Highways Agency had not maintained its objection to this development.

In response to the points raised by members, the Principal Planning Officer advised:

·       The outline planning permission required the modification of the existing Bullingham Lane junction to a signalised junction and works were due to commence soon.

·       As part of the UDP process, both the Council and the UDP Planning Inspector accepted that the capacity and density of the site could be increased to an estimated capacity of 600.

·       The proposed planning contributions represented a significant increase on that achieved from the original Section 106 Agreement and were considered reasonable in the circumstances.

·       There was no evidence to suggest that surface water drainage from the development had caused or increased localised flooding.

·       Regular clearing of the Withy Brook could have a detrimental impact on its nature conservation considerations.

·       The environmental credentials of the development would be enhanced through the applicant seeking to achieve at least Eco Homes ‘Good’ status for all the housing.

Councillor PA Andrews advised that Councillor H Davis had concerns about the level of parking provision, particularly given the disputes arising in the area about parking on pathways and cycleways.

Councillor DB Wilcox noted that the developer would be required to contribute towards sustainable transport measures.  However, he felt that the proposed £280,067 public transport contribution was not sufficient to deliver the initiatives required.  In light of the Draft Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations [SPD], he questioned whether the developer contributions were sufficient.  He also questioned whether the proposed 18% low cost market housing could be discounted in perpetuity.  He noted that similar schemes elsewhere had not been managed effectively and, after the initial sale, the discount was lost in subsequent transfers.

The Development Control Manager advised that the SPD had not yet been adopted and, given the terms of the original outline permission, he felt that the proposed contributions achieved by officers were appropriate.  The practical difficulties associated with low cost market housing discounts were noted and the Legal Practice Manager explained how such schemes should operate.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the discount scheme would be allocated through Home Point, thereby providing a greater degree of control.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that planning policy and efficiency targets had evolved significantly since the outline planning permission was granted and felt that there should be substantial uplifts in terms of the environmental credentials of the houses and in terms of planning contributions.  In particular, he noted that the additional houses would increase the amount of waste generated in the area and felt that consideration should be given to domestic waste macerators.  Councillor Chappell highlighted other costs to the authority that could result from increased housing numbers.

Councillor GFM Dawe felt that the application represented a regrettable degree of urbanisation.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that officers had worked hard on the application but he felt that the scheme needed to be improved given the concerns identified by members.  Therefore, he proposed that consideration of the application be deferred for further negotiations.  This was supported by a number of members.  Councillor Attfield requested that the Local Ward Members be consulted about the amended plans and ongoing negotiations.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that, due to the terms of the original outline permission, there was only limited room for negotiation on the final phase and asked for clarification about the issues that Sub-Committee wanted raised with the developer.  Members’ suggestions included:

§             Additional sustainability measures e.g. solar panels, grey water recycling, waste disposers.

§             Details on how the low cost market housing discount would be managed in perpetuity.

§             In view of the concerns over the discount, further consideration should be given to increasing the numbers of social rented and shared ownership housing.

§             Additional contributions towards public transport infrastructure.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred pending further negotiations with the applicant.