Erection of six detached houses (Amendment to SH940997PF).

Erection of six detached houses (Amendment to SH940997PF).

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.  He added that, since the updates sheet had been produced, two further letters had been received from a planning consultant acting on behalf of an adjacent landowner and the contents were summarised.  In addition, a petition containing 318 signatures had been received.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Harvey spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Baume spoke in support of the application.

 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JA Hyde, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site was in a sensitive location where new residential development would not be contemplated ordinarily and there was sympathy for the views expressed by local residents and interested bodies.  Nevertheless, as detailed in the Officer’s Appraisal, the application derived from an approved enabling scheme to finance the restoration of Caradoc Court.  Consequently, the applicant was free to implement the planning permission from 1995. 

·         Attention was drawn to paragraph 6.10 of the report which concluded that ‘…the financial evidence available confirms that the current proposal is no more profitable than the extant scheme…’.

·         Benefits arising from the current application included enhancements in terms of design and mitigating impact on protected trees.  In respect of access and parking arrangements, it was noted that both schemes involved the use of the bridleway and it was not considered that the new proposal would generate more traffic.

·         The officer’s report was commended for thoroughness and the detailed background information provided.  The concerns of local residents were noted but the extant planning permission remained a key factor in the determination of the current application.

 

Councillor PJ Watts commented on the level of investment in the restoration of Caradoc Court, that architectural design had moved on since 1995, and he did not consider that a site inspection was necessary given the extant planning permission.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell said that the principle of development had been established in 1995 and the Planning Committee needed to consider the comparative merits of the schemes.  He concurred with the assessment regarding traffic impact, particularly given the property types proposed.  Given the applicant’s fallback position, he supported the recommendation of approval.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards noted the need for adequate consideration of the material planning considerations, particularly as development in this location was contrary to a number of adopted planning policies.  Some reservations were expressed about the change of design from cottage to executive style dwellings and about the means of access for emergency, routine services and refuse collection vehicles.

 

In response to questions and comments:

w        The Principal Planning Officer advised that dressing rooms in some of the extant scheme house types would be capable of modification to provide 4 bedrooms; it was noted that overall gross floor area was identical in both schemes.  He acknowledged the concerns about vehicular access but the extant planning permission was considered a decisive factor.

w        The Locum Lawyer explained the role of the local planning authority in controlling development, with particular reference to Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Councillor PGH Cutter said that local residents’ concerns were understandable but the fact remained that the approved scheme could be implemented at any time.  It was noted that enabling development had been considered necessary by South Herefordshire District Council to secure the restoration of Caradoc Court and the investment made had not been realised yet.  He said that the case in support of the application had been well made by the local ward member and in the officer’s report.

 

Councillor Hyde was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  She reiterated the issues mentioned her opening statements, with emphasis on the extant planning permission, and considered the current application to be more acceptable in aesthetic terms.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1       A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

 

2       B03 Amended plans

 

3       B07 Section 106 Agreement

 

4       C01 Samples of external materials

 

5       D04 Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

 

6       D05 Details of external joinery finishes

 

7       D10 Specification of guttering and downpipes

 

8       E03 Site observation – archaeology

 

9       F14 Removal of permitted development rights

 

10     I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

11     H03 Visibility splays

 

12     H04 Visibility over frontage

 

13     H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

14     H27 Parking for site operatives

 

15     H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

16     I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

17     G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

18     G05 Pre-development tree work

 

19     G06 Remedial works to trees

 

20     G07 Protection of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order

 

21     G09 Details of boundary treatments

 

22     G10 Landscaping scheme

 

23     G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

24     Prior to commencement of the development, a full biodiversity protection and enhancement strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  This scheme should incorporate the recommendations as set out in the ecologist’s report dated December 2008, with the work implemented as approved and maintained thereafter as such.  An appropriately qualified ecological clerk of works should be appointed to oversee the ecological protection and enhancement work.

 

25     Within 3 months of the date of this planning permission.  A management plan for Castlemeadow Wood Special Wildlife Site shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval.  This shall be implemented as approved.

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1      HN01 Mud on highway

 

2      HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

3      HN05 Works within the highway

 

4      HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

5      N11C General