Development of grass and all weather sports pitches, clubhouse, indoortraining building, car parking and landscaping supported by enabling residential development of 190 units.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He added that 3 further letters of objection had been received after the updates sheet had been produced. These letters had been submitted from previous objectors and raised no new material planning considerations.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Townson, representing Hampton Bishop Parish Council, and Mr Westoby, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Griffiths, the applicant, and Councillor JLV Kenyon, the neighbouring ward member who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the application, spoke in support. Councillor Kenyon left the Council Chamber immediately after speaking and took no further participation in the debate.

 

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

 

·         The benefits to Rugby in Herefordshire were not argued, however the proposed location was wrong and there were access and highways issues with the proposed site.

·         The only way the application could go ahead was through the requirement of 190 dwellings.

·         The application was in open countryside in a rural approach to the city.

·         The area was an important area of the Wye Valley and was only serviced by a B road.

·         The Parish Council and the Objector had both voiced their concerns and their comments should be noted.

 

Prior to the debate the Principal Planning Officer was asked a question in respect of the requirement to consider Brownfield and Greenfield sites for housing as outlined in the recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework. In response to the question the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the NPPF required the Council to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land as well as a 5% buffer. He added that there was now a requirement to consider releasing Greenfield and Brownfield land outside of the settlement boundary and that the NPPF stipulated that housing proposals should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

The Committee opened the debate by voicing their disappointment that the application had been bought back before them, however they appreciated the reasons for this as outlined in the Officer’s report. They discussed a number of key policies and made the following comments:

 

·         Policy RST10 of the Unitary Development Plan which related to major sports facilities highlighted the importance of regional and sub-regional facilities. It was accepted that there were no other alternative sites which were viable, suitable and available.

·         The proposal was in keeping with policy T8 of the Unitary Development Plan as the site was sustainable with good public transport links.

·         Policy NC6 of the Unitary Development Plan in terms of biodiversity was also addressed through the protection of the orchard.

·         The application was also in accordance with both policies LA2 and LA3 of the UDP in terms of landscaping and the setting of the settlement. Also within 3-5 years the organic status of the retained orchard would be established enhancing the landscape, wildlife and presence of wild flowers on the site.

·         The proposal to include 35% affordable housing was in accordance with policy of H9 of the UDP.

·         The proposed development would provide much needed housing in Hereford, with 5000 people on the housing waiting list.

·         The application was also in accordance with Policy DR2 of the UDP in terms of land use.

·         DR4 of the UDP had also been complied with due to the high construction standard of the proposed dwellings achieving code level 4.

·         At £6.1 million, the Section 106 agreement was the largest contribution secured in the history of Herefordshire Council and would result in a number of community infrastructure benefits to the residents of the County including the provision of 36 allotments and the transfer of the existing rugby club site to the Council.

·         Due to the Ecological Management Plan submitted by the applicant, the application was also now in accordance with Policy S7 of the UDP. This was demonstrated by the withdrawal of an objection by Natural England.

 

Following the comments made in support of the application a Member of the Committee moved that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. In moving the recommendation UDP Policies RST10, T8, NC6, LA2, LA3, H9, DR2, DR4, DR5 and S7 were all given as policies that supported that application.

 

In seconding the motion another Member of the Committee also put forward Policy S8 of the UDP as being another reason for approving the application. It was also suggested that the application was also supported by Section 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding prosperous rural economies, and section 8 regarding sports venues.

 

The Committee continued to debate the application with another Member noting the four key requirements of the previous Planning Committee resolution as outlined in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.10 of the officer’s report.  These issues related to further comments received and the protection of additional orchard, the withdrawal of Natural England’s objection, the agreed design code, and the provision of the Section 106 agreement, all of which had now been resolved. He went on to reiterate the policies referred to by previous speakers which supported the application. Finally in summing up he also noted that the approval of the application would protect a large part of the existing orchard which was not currently protected and could be removed at any time by the farmer, it was felt that this was a benefit in supporting the application. The following points were expressed in supporting the application:

 

·         The 4 requirements outlined in the case officer’s report had been met.

·         A major sporting facility would be provided which would give the opportunity for improved fitness and wellbeing.

·         An approval would secure retention of part of the orchard in a key approach to the city.

·         Code Level 4 standard for environmental design was welcomed on the site.

·         The 35% affordable housing element with a balanced provision of homes was welcomed.

·         The site was well placed in sustainability terms with particular reference being made in respect of the forthcoming Sustrans cycleway to Rotherwas.

·         The proposed application also provided a number of community allotments.

 

Other members spoke in support of the application and noted that the NPPF gave a presumption in favour of sustainable development and therefore the application should be supported. Concern was also expressed in respect of the site being referred to as open countryside as it was accepted that there were a number of dwellings within the Tupsley ward in close proximity to the proposed site.

 

Some members did however express concern in respect of the application and advised that they would be voting against the motion. It was noted that there were some positives as referred to by previous speakers but that these were outweighed by the negatives which included visual intrusion; the loss of sections of the orchard; the impact on one of the main routes into the city; the traffic concerns; the flood risk; as well as the impact the application would have on the neighbouring residents.

 

The Councillor who had moved the motion to approve the application agreed that the Section 106 Heads of Terms were as set out in the report, and the inclusion of any necessary conditions as well as the wording of the decision notice, including the conditions, should be delegated to officers in consultation with the ward member, the neighbouring ward member and the Chairman of the Planning Committee. In response to a number of questions from the Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) he confirmed the following:

 

·         That he accepted that by approving the application the application would be considered as a departure from Policy H7 of the UDP, but that this was justified through the NPPF, through the provision of affordable housing and the lack of a five year housing land supply.

·         That the application conformed to the criteria as set out in policies LA2 and LA3 of the UDP as it would not adversely affect the landscape setting and character due to the comprehensive Ecological Management Plan and layout.

·         That in respect of policy RST10, the environmental impact was deemed as acceptable with any concerns outweighed by the provision of regional sporting facility on a suitable, viable and affordable site. This was reiterated through the withdrawal of an objection by Natural England.

·         That the proposed Ecological Management Plan and the withdrawal of Natural England’s objection addressed Policies S7 and NC6.

·         That he adopted the reasoning on the other planning issues as set out in the report.

 

Councillor J Hardwick was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested and made the following additional comments:

 

·         The issues of flooding and visual impact had not been addressed by the applicant.

·         40% of the existing orchard would be lost as part of the application.

·         The provision of floodlighting on the site was of concern to the neighbouring residents.

·         The agricultural access between the two junior pitches was also a concern in respect of health and safety.

·         The impact on the villages of Mordiford and Hampton Bishop as a result of increased traffic was also noted.

·         The site was not acceptable and there were clearly more suitable sites within the county.

·         The application should therefore be refused in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

 

A Named Vote was called for and taken in accordance with paragraph 4.1.16.38 of the Council’s constitution.

 

The following Members voted for the motion:

 

Councillors PA Andrews, PJ Edwards, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, RC Hunt, MD Lloyd-Hayes, JD Woodward, AJM Blackshaw (substitute), AM Atkinson (substitute), A Johnson (substitute), P Rone (substitute), R Preece (substitute) BA Durkin (Vice-Chairman), PGH Cutter (Chairman).

 

The following Members voted against the motion:

 

Councillors AN Bridges, JG Lester, FM Norman, GR Swinford

 

As Local Ward Member, Councillor J Hardwick was not entitled to vote on the motion.

The motion was carried by 14 votes to 4.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission in consultation with the Ward Councillor, adjoining (Tupsley) Ward Councillors and the Chair of Planning Committee subject to:

 

1.         Any conditions considered necessary by officers.

 

2.         The completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms as detailed in the officers appraisal.