Residential development comprising of 29 dwellings, with associated access, car parking, landscaping and open space.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. He advised Members that since the updates had been produced further information and clarification regarding drainage serving the development had been obtained. He advised Members that in order to connect to the adopted network waste would have to pass through a short section of unadopted pipe. He therefore requested that an additional pre-commencement condition be added to the recommendation requiring the development to be served by an adopted network or a network that was subject to an adoption agreement with Welsh Water to address this. He noted the local communities concerns in respect of offsite drainage issues but advised that these concerns were not relevant to the application under consideration today.

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

·         There were still ongoing concerns in respect of sewerage issues in the area with raw sewerage being leaked onto Roman Road in the last week.

·         The Landscape Officer still objected to the application on the basis of landscape character.

·         The area was of high landscape value due to it being one of the few remaining areas of small fields with native hedges in the proximity of the city.

·         The application was therefore contrary to UDP Policy H7.

·         The existing foul water system had still not been adopted by Crest Nicholson despite this commitment being made when their 2009 planning permission was considered by committee. An appeal had been made to OFWAT with public disclosure of the decision due shortly.

·         The site was a greenfield site, the Council, in accordance with the Cabinet decision made on 12 July 2012, should look at the availability of brownfield sites and low to medium constraint sites before granting permission on the application site.

·         The Section 106 agreement did not include a contribution to either Holmer school or the Wentworth Park play area which was in need of updating.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the unadopted section related to an area where two pipes merged into one on Roman Road between an existing manhole cover and the pumping station.

The committee opened the debate by referring to the four key reasons on which they felt the application should be refused, they felt that these still remained valid despite the information contained within the further information report.

The Committee noted the comments in the further information report in respect of Unitary Development Plan Policy H7 and were of the opinion that the application should be refused due to it being contrary to the afore mentioned policy. They also stated that there were still a number of brownfield sites throughout the county which should be prioritised for housing before any rural greenfield areas were considered.

In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that with the exception of the adjoining site, the known available brownfield sites such as some of [amended at Planning Committee 19 September 2012] the Edgar Street Grid were already accounted for in the Council’s five year housing land supply.

The second reason related to landscape issues. The Committee were still of the opinion that there would be an impact on the landscape due to the development of the historic field and the removal of hedgerows. They stated that there was a need for the Council to protect small pastural fields throughout the county.  One member also stated that there was a high landscape value to green open space surrounding large residential developments.

The Committee also discussed traffic issues in the area. It was noted that there were still concerns in respect of traffic volume on Roman Road and that out of the 300 houses approved on a neighbouring site only about a third were currently occupied. Members felt that the additional 29 homes would have an adverse impact on the local highway network. It was further considered that the cumulative impact of the extra traffic would affect the daily commute of hundreds of people accessing the city centre from the Roman Road area.

During the debate Members continued to emphasise that the drainage issues in the area were of primary concern. It was noted that at the meeting of the Central Area Planning Committee when the 300 homes on the neighbouring site were granted, the developer agreed to install an adoptable standard new main line from the site to Hereford Hospital. Members voiced their concerns that this had not been completed.  The Committee noted the concerns of the local residents in respect of the drainage issues and stated that these concerns had to be taken seriously especially in the light of forthcoming information regarding evidence of raw sewerage on the pavement of Roman Road over the previous week.  One Member of the Committee was of the opinion that developers should investigate alternative drainage methods including wet systems. In summing up the Committee felt that the developer needed to ensure the drainage throughout the whole site was to an adoptable standard and subject to an adoption agreement.

One Member advised the committee that he rented the land some years ago as pastural land. He added that at that time there were a number of restrictions in place on the land to protect it due to its significant landscape importance. He added that he was not permitted to use fertilizer or access the field at all in wet weather due to the possibility of damaging the land.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the issues in respect of the adopted and unadopted drainage infrastructure on and around the site. He gave further details in respect of the unadopted section of drainage that waste would have to pass through prior to joining the adopted network. He added that this had only recently come to light and that it could be mitigated and addressed through an appropriate pre-commencement condition.

In response to a further question the Principal Planning Officer advised that the site had not previously been identified as acceptable for development during the strategic housing land availability assessment process due to landscape concerns but at that time the Council had sufficient land allocated for housing however this situation had now changed and been reinforced since the introduction of the NPPF. He also advised that the open space on the site would be transferred to the Council upon completion of the development.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised Members in respect of the reasons for refusal proposed by the Committee. He advised that refusing the application due to policy H7 in isolation, in respect of homes in the open countryside, would in his opinion not be defendable at appeal due to the requirement for the council to have a 5 year housing stock as set out in the NPPF. He also advised the Committee against refusing the application on highway grounds due to no objection being received by the Traffic Manager and the statistical information contained in the report highlighting that the increase in traffic would only be 0.3%. He did however advise that the reasons in respect of drainage and the lack of connection to a public sewer and non-compliance with UDP Policy CF2 as well as landscaping would in his opinion be defendable issues at appeal.

One Member of the Committee felt that the reasons for refusal based around policy H7 should remain, bearing in mind the landscape reason for refusal and the non-compliance with Policy LA2, which outweighed the benefits of the development. Therefore the housing on this site should not be permitted pursuant to the National Planning Policy Framework. An additional reason was the lack of a completed and signed Section 106 agreement. The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that these could be encompassed within the reason for refusal should the committee be minded to include them in it.

In response to a question the Principal Planning Officer advised that the application for 35 homes adjacent to the site was currently undetermined as it had only been recently received by the Council. He added that the application would come before the Planning Committee in the near future.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and added that she felt that the application should be refused.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) requested confirmation from the mover and seconder of the motion to refuse the application that the reasons for refusal were the four grounds as discussed. This was agreed. She also requested confirmation as to whether the further reason for refusal raised during the debate in respect of the lack of a signed Section 106 agreement was to be added to the motion. The mover and seconder of the original motion stated that they were happy to amend the motion to include this.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1          Housing in the countryside

2          Landscape impact

3          Cumulative highway Impact

4          Adequacy of the drainage infrastructure

5          Failure to submit a completed and signed Section 106 agreement