Outline application for 35 unit housing scheme with associated access.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a further information report in accordance with paragraph 5.12.10.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Wright, representing Kingstone and Thruxton Parish Council, and Mr Barton, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Reed, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         That Welsh Water were unable to deliver a piped supply to the reservoir therefore a number of HGV’s delivered water via the narrow Kingstone roads.

·         The primary bus route from Kingstone picked passengers up approximately a mile away from the proposed site. This route was currently unlit.

·         People would have to travel to work as there was little employment in Kingstone itself.

·         What would happen if the Welsh Water upgrade required did not take place?

·         The Council needed to address the core strategy to avoid a number of similar application outside of the settlement boundaries of villages throughout the County.

·         Why was the cycling policy referred to in the list of appropriate policies, the roads around Kingstone were not safe for cyclists.

In response to a number of points made by the local ward member, the Development Manager (Northern Localities) confirmed that:

·         If the upgrades were not completed by Welsh Water, the dwellings could not be occupied.

·         The Core Strategy was being set out through the LDF process by the Planning Policy team headed up by Andrew Ashcroft.

·         The cycling policy was referred to as a number of cycle routes were being extended throughout the county including a route to Madley industrial estate.

The committee opened the debate by voicing their concerns in respect of the application. The first Member who spoke was of the opinion that he could not support the application. He added that there were a number of narrow roads in the area which were used by agricultural vehicles as well as large HGV’s. He also noted that the public had made their feelings known in respect of the application with 84% of local residents against it and that this was supported with 69 letters of objection received by the Planning Department. He then went on to address the issue of sustainability and stated that the site was clearly not sustainable as there was no employment available in Kingstone as well as the difficulty in accessing Hereford City due to the traffic issues on the A465 through Belmont. In summing up he felt that the Council had a duty to listen to the residents of Kingstone who had made it clear that they did not want the development as the dwellings were not needed. This had been confirmed as the Parish Council had completed a housing survey which had shown that there was not a need for such a large number of dwellings in Kingstone.

Another Member stated that he was concerned about the reference to H10 in the report. H10 of the Unitary Development Plan listed 7 provisions that needed to be fulfilled in respect of affordable housing. In this instance it appeared that there was some concern as to whether provisions 1, 2 and 6 had actually been fulfilled. These areas addressed issues of a proven, genuine and quantifiable need; evidence that local housing could not fulfil the demand; and that it did not involve a mixed development.

The Committee were concerned that the Council could be subject to a large number of similar applications due to a delay in the introduction of the LDF framework. It was considered that the Council should be taking note of the concerns of the local residents in respect of these issues. The general view of the Committee was that the development was not sustainable and the village of Kingstone was lacking in respect of the required infrastructure.

A Member of the Committee stated that there had been a number of similar applications throughout the County which were clearly not sustainable. He also noted that there was a lack of jobs and infrastructure in the village, a point supported by the local ward member. He was also concerned that there was no proposed play area on the site and felt that it not acceptable to make young children to cross busy roads to access play facilities.

Another Member spoke in objection to the application and stated that the Committee understood that the Council did not have a 5 year housing supply and that they also understood that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However Kingstone did not need to supply the housing shortfall for the whole county. The report made one short reference to sustainability yet the development was being referred to as a sustainable development. The Committee had a duty to ensure that developments were permitted in the most suitable locations through the County however this was not a suitable location and should be refused.

It was noted that Welsh Water had already indicated that the upgrade would not be complete until 2015. The Committee considered that it should ensure the entire required infrastructure was in place prior to granting permission on the site. Another Member noted that the Localism Act required Council’s to listen to local residents and that, in this case, the local residents had made it very clear that they were not in support of the application.

One Member of the Committee felt that the applicant needed to address sustainability. Why had a ‘wet system’ not been investigated after Welsh Water had advised of a lack of drainage capacity. Safe cycling routes throughout the County also had to be provided before the Council could make steps to reduce vehicular movements on the busy routes into the city.

Finally it was stated that there was no analysis contained within the report as to why Kingstone was deemed as sustainable and as to why the site was considered as sustainable. The Committee needed to be persuaded of these facts and there was a clear lack of evidence at present. There was also no play space on the site and no clear sustainable features in the proposed dwellings.

Councillor JF Knipe was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested that the application be refused.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) addressed the Committee. He advised them that Kingstone was included in the Unitary Development Plan as a main village and therefore development in this area was deemed as sustainable in planning terms. He added that a refusal on the grounds of sustainability would not be defendable at appeal.

In terms of the infrastructure he advised that Welsh Water had identified works required to the network and that these would be completed by 2015.

In terms of cycling he advised that the draft heads of terms appended to the officer’s report set out where monies would be spent to improve the cycle network in the area. This included a link to Madley industrial estate.

He also drew Members’ attention to the comments from the Transportation Manager who had not objected to the application and added that a refusal based on highway grounds would therefore not be defendable at appeal.

Finally he addressed the issue of design which had been raised during the debate. He noted that the design and layout of the proposed dwellings was similar to other developments in the area and would therefore not be a suitable reason for refusing the application.

The Development Manager advised Members to defer the application in order for an enhanced report to be resubmitted to them clarifying the points raised in the debate. The Committee were not minded to defer the application.

Therefore, in light of the concerns raised above, the Development Manager advised that he would be requesting a Further Information Report in accordance with paragraph 5.12.10.4 of the Planning Code contained within the Council’s Constitution as there would be the potential to lose an appeal and also as the applicant would be in a position to claim substantial costs against the Council if any such appeal was lost.

Members noted that the question put to the Principal Planning Officer, in respect of Unitary Development Plan Policy H10, had not been responded to. The Principal Planning Officer advised that there was an identified housing need in Kingstone and that the development would meet this requirement and if homes were available the need would be cascaded to adjoining parishes. In respect to the issue regarding mixed development the lack of a five year housing land supply negated this criterion.

The Regulatory, Environment and Litigation Solicitor, representing the Monitoring Officer, advised  the Committee that the reasons for refusal put forward during the debate, including issues regarding sustainability, highway access, density and drainage, would could [amended at Planning Committee meeting dated 20 February 2013] in his opinion be difficult to defend at an appeal. Therefore he concurred with the Development Manager that a further report would be necessary and requested that the Further Information Report procedure be followed accordingly.

The Chairman read out an extract from the Council’s Planning Code, namely paragraph 5.12.10.4, which related to the Further Information Report process. He advised Members that the Committee were now required to defer the determination of the application and could not move to a vote.

RESOLVED:  

That consideration of planning application S122604/O be deferred pending a further information report.