Residential development comprising 10 nos. Affordable housing units, car parking, shared access and landscaping

Residential development comprising 10 nos. Affordable housing units, car parking, shared access and landscaping.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following updates:

Further comments were received from Herefordshire Council’s Senior Landscape Officer, who made the following points, reproduced in full:

·         The proposed development is located to the south-west of the settlement of Kingsland, in open countryside between, and adjacent to, an extension to the village (Kingsleane) and a dispersed collection of dwellings and farms, collectively known as West Town. The settlement has a linear character, principally due to recent additions to the north-west along the B4360, belying a former central focus on the church and ‘castle’. Substantial dwellings and farmsteads exist to the south-east of the central crossroads and it would, perhaps, be better to describe the settlement as ‘polyfocal’ – containing a number of centres of influence and interest, representative of historic phases of development. The village once commanded a strategic importance between the River Lugg to the north-east and the former Roman road to the west – that importance having caused the road to migrate towards the settlement and on to its current course (A4110). Archaeological investigation suggests the proposed development site has not previously been occupied by buildings.

·         Visually the settlement and application site are located in a landscape type described in the Herefordshire Landscape Character Assessment as ‘Principal Settled Farmlands’. This landscape type is defined by a mixed land use and distinct hedgerow boundaries. The site currently represents an example of unimproved lowland pasture, defined by mature and complex hedgerows; a locally distinctive element in the landscape, but one that is rapidly disappearing. In brief the development of this site would permanently remove a distinctive element from the landscape and bring about a negative change in the quality and character of the area.

·         The proposed design is bland and unimaginative and fails to respond to the character and constraints of the settlement and site. Whereas the adjacent ‘Kingsleane’ development recognises the ‘natural’ termination of the settlement and addresses the sharp bend in the road creating a quality, useable space to the south-east, the proposed development is founded on a standard highways turning head and radius (shamelessly leaving access to possible further development to the west) and utilises every available space for buildings and car parking.

·         The proposed layout results in 80% of the modest (9m x 8m) garden spaces being to the north of the buildings, resulting in most of them being in deep shadow for much of the year. Two of the proposed properties (plots 2 & 5) are accessed to the rear only via a path extending to 49 metres in length. This layout is dominated by car parking and roadway, completely contrary to the general character of the settlement.

·         The design and access statement claims that the ‘sensitive landscaping’ is at the core of the design; however, this is simply not evident. The much vaunted and ‘...generous...’ communal open space is modest in size, the product of the road layout and not a defining design feature; I do not believe it to be manageable or sustainable. It is proposed to be planted as a ‘...small wooded area...’ containing one feature oak, a small number of birch, field maple and rowan and some shrubs, specific areas and numbers of plants are not described and the proposal is completely inappropriate for a space of approximately 22m x 18m. The remaining landscaping for the site extends to three crab apples, some amenity planting to front gardens – principally to define parking areas – and a new boundary hedge to the west. Although the D&A Statement claims that ‘sensitive landscaping will be provided throughout the development which will give good screening between the new and existing development...’ no new landscaping is proposed to the east of the site. Furthermore, a well conceived scheme should use landscaping to inform the general layout and ensure assimilation into the setting. The need for ‘screening’ should be recognised as either a failure in design or the last resort to an insurmountable problem.

·         It is suggested in the D&A Statement that the development will be adequately screened from view by the mature roadside hedgerow to the south of the site; however, it is important to bear in mind that once this hedgerow forms the boundary to a domestic curtilage it would no longer fall within the remit of the Hedgerow Regulations and no constraint on its removal would exist. Not only would the existing hedgerow screen views into the site, but it would also screen views out and restrict direct light to the house and garden (plot 10)

·         Lastly, the proposal has failed to address the constraint imposed by a mature oak tree to the north-west corner of the site and details of how it should be safely retained and protected during development included in the submission. Standards of protection should comply with the recommendations made in BS5837; Trees in Relation to Construction, 2005.

In conclusion, the proposal failed to address the first three points of policy DR1 in the UDP. As an ‘exception’ site the proposed development was, not surprisingly, a departure from the general visual character of the landscape, but would also permanently remove an element - unimproved pasture - from that landscape. The proposal occupied a site at the edge of the settlement, redefining the boundaries and character of the place without preserving or enhancing the existing character. I would consider the proposals to be contrary to both policies LA2 and LA3 of the UDP. I do not consider the landscaping proposals as adequate for a site of high sensitivity and whilst it is occasionally expedient to condition the development of an appropriate scheme of planting, I believe the proposals to be fundamentally flawed. I could not support this proposal for development.

Welsh Water object as the proposed development would overload the Waste Water Treatment Works. No improvements are planned within the Welsh Waters Capital Investment Programme. Therefore any development prior to improvements being made will be premature.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Sharp-Smith, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Rivers, the applicant, spoke in support.

Councillor J Stone questioned whether the application complied with policy H10 of the Unitary Development Plan. He also asked members to consider the location of the development and to consider the need for affordable housing in the county and therefore suggested a site visit to familiarise members with the site.

Councillor RJ Phillips said that he supported the wish for affordable housing in the area. He said that in order for an application to be permitted that broke the principles of the settlement boundary, it would need to make a significant contribution to an area. The application, in his opinion was not particularly environmentally friendly and was poorly designed. He pointed out that Welsh Water had objected to the development so he could not support the application.

Councillor JK Swinburne expressed concern over the proposed section 106 agreement on the site. She had concerns that the need for a contribution was not local enough to the development. She also questioned the need for further affordable homes specifically in the village mentioned in the application.

Members were in agreement that the development should be refused per the officer’s recommendation. They agreed that the objections raised by Welsh Water were reason enough to deny planning permission, but made it clear that as a committee they were in support of the principle of affordable homes.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason(s):

1. The application site is not considered to be adjacent to the settlement boundary of the village of Kingsland.  Consequently, the proposal does not comply with policy H10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007).

2. The proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area contrary to policy HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007) and to guidance contained with PPG15 – Planning and Historic Environment.

3. The proposed development by virtue of its location and prominent position is considered to be harmful to the landscape quality of the area contrary to Policy LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007). The introduction of built form in this location would harm the setting and approach to the village contrary to policy LA3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007).

4. The application site is designated as a Special Wildlife site and is recognised as unimproved hay meadow. As such the introduction of development would be contrary to the aims of policies NC4 and NC6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007) and guidance contained within PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

5. The proposal, when considered in relation to the adjacent affordable housing site known as Kingsleane, would create a development, harmful to the social cohesion of Kingsland by virtue of not being integrated within or with meaningful context to the existing local community, contrary to policies S1 and S3.

6. The proposed development fails to make provision for or in lieu of a small children’s /infants play area, properly equipped and fenced and therefore fails to meet the criteria of policy H19 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007).

     7.    The proposal would result in unacceptable overloading of the waste water treatment works and as such would be detrimental to the local environmental and public health, and therefore contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies DR2 and CF2.