Construction of three detached dwellings.

Construction of three detached dwellings.

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         A further letter had been received from Burcott House Management Ltd requesting further information regarding the proposed drainage.

·         A further letter had been received from Mrs. Watkins of 125 Aylestone Hill re-iterating previous objections regarding impact on the Conservation Area, highway safety, amenity, the Section 106 contributions and the principle of residential development on the site.

·         A further e-mail from the applicant's agent had been received stating that the parking/turning area was proposed to be rolled scalpings as opposed to loose gravel and a highway mirror could be installed on the applicant's land to improve intervisibility of the access to the site.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         Rolled scalpings would provide a permeable hard surface but would minimise noise arising from vehicles and the mirror would address the concerns of the nearest neighbour regarding the safety of accessing/exiting their driveway.

§         The recommendation had been amended to include additional conditions requiring the mirror to be installed and the completion of the Section 106 Agreement prior to the commencement of the development, rather than prior to issuing the planning permission.

 

In response to questions from Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted the location of the Aylestone Park viewing point and explained the surface water drainage arrangements; including rainwater harvesting with overflow to a balancing pond with the likely run-off rate reduced below existing green field run-off rates from the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that there had not been any specific consultations required regarding the drainage arrangements but recommended condition 14 would require technical details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. 

 

Councillor Wilcox noted the environmental credentials of the design, that mains drainage connection was necessary, and that as ‘white land’ in the UDP the site had not been specifically identified for residential development.  He commented on the value of the site inspection that had been undertaken, particularly given the elevated position of the application site and its proximity to Aylestone Park.  Councillor Wilcox said that the designs were innovative and exciting but he felt that scheme was not in keeping with the character of this area.  Therefore, he proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the amenity of the area, would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would have an unacceptable impact on Aylestone Park, particularly on the outlook from the viewing point.

 

Councillor NL Vaughan, the other Local Ward Member, felt that relevant agencies should be consulted on the drainage arrangements given that existing dwellings in the area suffered from flooding and that this scheme could exacerbate the problems.  He also felt that it was unacceptable that, despite the widening of the access track, the access would still not be to full adoptable standards and he noted the difficulties experienced when egressing onto Aylestone Hill at peak traffic periods.  He welcomed the sustainable design elements but noted that this was not an overriding reason to support the scheme, particularly if the development would have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

 

In response to a question from Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Principal Planning Officer advised that this site was not included in the design of Aylestone Park and that a proposed orchard area (relating to a Section 106 Agreement as part of a recent Royal National College for the Blind scheme) was on the other side of the park. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer also advised that: designation as ‘white land’ in the UDP meant that no specific land use had been identified but it did not preclude residential development and the site was within the Hereford City settlement boundary; the Conservation Manager – Building Conservation had commented that ‘Although the designs are not in keeping with the character of the area they are of interest and would add to the architectural canon of the area being a good example of 21st Century design’; whilst the development would be visible, it was not considered that the proposal would obstruct or detract from the outlook from the viewing point; and the access and access track would be constructed to an adoptable standard but could not be adopted as no service strip could be accommodated.  He added that the access could support up to 25 dwellings, with no limit on size, according to current design standards.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the design approach but, noting the concerns of the Local Ward Members, questioned whether a condition could be imposed to ensure that no ancillary structures were visible above ground level.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the dwellings would be predominantly subterraneous and recommended condition 5 would remove permitted development rights, so that ancillary structures could be controlled; he added that the dwellings could be lowered into the ground level further but this would require substantial excavation.

 

Councillor AM Toon questioned whether an Environmental Impact Assessment should be required and, given the concerns about flooding in the locality, suggested that measures to mitigate surface water run-off rates should not only account for the development but also contribute to reducing the overflow from the surrounding land.  Councillor Toon also drew attention to the response of the Children and Young People Directorate and felt that contributions towards educational infrastructure should be more specific.  She felt that consideration of the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the above issues. 

 

In response, the Legal Practice Manager explained that there were precise regulations in respect of Environmental Impact Assessments and the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this scheme had not reached the relevant thresholds.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the drainage arrangements could be expanded to allow for an element of run-off from surrounding land, representing betterment from the development.  He also advised that the consultation response regarding educational facilities was in a standard format and it was understood that monies from planning obligations were pooled until they reached a satisfactory level to provide useful infrastructure improvements.  Subject to the betterment of the existing surface water run-off situation, Councillor Toon withdrew the motion to defer.

 

The Chairman, drawing attention to paragraph 6.9 of the report, noted that the undeveloped land around the dwellings would be managed for nature conservation and controlled, through the Section 106 Agreement, to prevent it from being used as private garden by any of the dwellings.

 

Councillor GFM Dawe welcomed the scheme and noted that natural grass roofing, rainwater harvesting and permeable drive surfaces would significantly reduce run-off rates when compared to conventional developments.

 

Councillor AT Oliver felt that the design approach could act as a beacon for future developments, particularly the aim of achieving Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.  Given that the development would be set into the rising ground level, he did not consider that the dwellings would have an unacceptable visual impact and noted that views were more likely to be obstructed by mature landscaping.

 

In response to a question from Councllor SJ Robertson, the Principal Planning Officer advised that each dwelling would have an enclosed courtyard, utility and garden area commensurate  with the size of the property.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that views towards the site would be in the context of existing built development and natural grass roofing would mitigate visual impact.

 

Councillor RI Matthews acknowledged that this was a sensitive site but noted that efforts had been made to integrate the development into the local environment and questioned whether refusal of planning permission could be sustained on appeal.

 

A motion to refuse the application failed and a motion to approve the application was then carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2       C01 (Samples of external materials).

 

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

 

3.      D02 (Approval of details).

 

         Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out in accordance with details that are appropriate to the safeguarding of the architectural or historic interest of the site as one which is in a conservation area, or of local interest and to comply with the requirements of Policy HBA12 and HBA13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

 

4.      F05 (Restriction on hours of construction).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties and to comply with Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5.      F14 (Removal of permitted development rights).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy H13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

6.      F15 (No windows in side elevation of extension).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

7.      G01 (Earthworks).

 

         Reason: (Special Reason but to include - in order to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1 and LA5 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan).

 

8.      G09 (Details of Boundary treatments).

 

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development has an acceptable standard of privacy and to conform to Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

9.      G10 (Landscaping scheme).

 

         Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to conform with Policy LA6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

10.    G14 (Landscape management plan).

 

         Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy LA6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

11.    The alterations to the vehicular access and access road as identified in drawing no. 5706-02 Revision B shall be completed in accordance with the specification to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any other work commencing on the construction of the dwellings hereby permitted.

 

         Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

12.    H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

13.    H27 (Parking for site operatives).

 

         Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

14.    I18 (Scheme of mains foul and surface water drainage disposal prior to commencement to include surface water betterment above the existing greenfield runoff rate).

 

         Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided and to comply with Policy DR4 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

15.    I32 (Details of external lighting).

 

         Reason: To safeguard local amenities and to comply with Policy DR14 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

16.    I42 (Scheme of refuse storage (residential)).

 

         Reason: In the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy DR4 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

17.    B07 – Section 106 Agreement

 

         Reason: In order to provide enhanced sustainable transport, educational, play and sport and library infrastructure and to enhance the biodiversity interest of the site in accordance with policies DR5 and NC7 and NC8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

18.Provision of a ‘highway mirror’ along the access road

 

         Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety and to comply with policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

Informatives:

 

1.     N02 - Section 106 Obligation.

 

2.     N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

 

3.     N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.