Erection of 10 no. affordable homes with associated parking, access & landscaping.

 

 

The application could not be determined as the applicant had lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination.

 

The Committee would have been minded to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation if the appeal had not been lodged.

The Senior 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, Mrs Clark, representing Linton Parish Council; and Mr Price, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

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

 

·         A technical report regarding the drainage issues at the site had been sent to the Planning Committee Members.

·         Members were thanked for attending the site visit.

·         There were significant issues regarding highway safety at Ivy House Lane.

·         Child safety was an important factor in determining the application.

 

The Development Manager advised the Committee that an appeal against non-determination had been received on Monday 21 April 2013 and as a result of this the application could not be determined by the Planning Committee. However in order to make an appropriate representation in respect of the appeal it was necessary for the Committee  to advise officers as to how they would have determined the application had they been in a position to do so.

 

The first member of the Committee to speak on the application was of the opinion that it should be refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. He noted the concerns of the parish council and of the local residents and had concerns regarding child safety due to the busy B road, which connected to a motorway. He also noted the concerns raised in respect of drainage and considered that as a result of these issues the development was not sustainable. He moved that the application be refused in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR2, DR3 and T8.

 

The Committee stated that they were not in agreement with this view and a motion to approve the application was moved and seconded. Members noted that the drainage issues had been addressed through appropriate conditions and that the development could not commence until these issues had been fully resolved. Members did have some concern in respect of the vehicular speed in the vicinity of the school and requested that a condition be added to the resolution requiring the speed limit to be reduced to 20mph. Members continued to discuss the application and noted that the development could reduce vehicular movements to the school as residents of the proposed dwellings would be able to walk to the nearby primary school.

 

It was noted that a site search had been underway since 2007 and that this was the most appropriate site identified in Gorsley. The debate continued with Members supporting the application. It was considered that the application would result in the area being more built up which could also lead to a reduction in vehicle speeds.

 

During the debate the Parish Council were strongly advised to commence work on a neighbourhood plan,

 

In response to a number of issues raised by the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer advised that there was no Section 106 agreement contribution for highways although there were highway benefits within the site; that the density of the site was 29 dwellings per hectare; that priority for occupancy would be given to local residents; and that the front of the dwellings did not open onto the B road as there was a hedge and footpath between the dwellings and the road.

 

In response to a question regarding a condition addressing the speed limit in the area, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that this was outside of the control of the applicant and could not be conditioned by the Committee. He did however state that he would advise the highway authority of the Committee’s concerns in respect of this matter.

 

Councillor H Bramer was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested that the Committee refuse the application.

 

RESOLVED

 

THAT had an appeal not been submitted in respect of non-determination the Committee would have been minded to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         A01 – Time limit for commencement of development

 

2.         B01 – Development in accordance with approved plans

 

3.         B07 – No development until the completion, signing and receipt of S106 agreement

 

4.         C01 – Sample of external materials

 

5.         G02 – Retention of trees and hedgerows

 

6.         G09 – Details of boundary treatments

 

7.         G10 – Landscaping scheme

 

8.         G11 – Landscaping scheme implementation

 

9.         G12 – Hedgerow planting

 

10.       H03 – Visibility splays

 

11.       H04 – Visibility over frontage

 

12.       H13 – Access, turning area and parking

 

13.       H17 – Junction improvement

 

14.       H21 – Wheel washing

 

15.       H27 – Parking for site operatives

 

16.       H29 – Covered and secure cycle parking

 

17.       I16  – Restriction on hours during construction

 

18.       I17  – Scheme of foul water disposal

 

19.       I20  – Scheme of surface water drainage

 

20.       I23  – Improvement of existing sewerage system

 

21.       I42  – Scheme of refuse storage

 

22.       Contamination study and report and mitigation

 

23.       Implementation of Remediation Scheme approved under condition no.23

 

Reason for Approval

 

1.         The proposal represents a sustainable form of development satisfying a genuine proven affordable housing need within this locality on a suitable and available site which has limited constraints and is within close proximity to local services and facilities. The proposal is of a size, scale, design, layout and density in keeping with its edge of village location and has no detrimental impact on adjoining land uses, the character and appearance of the streetscene or highway safety. Accordingly Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies S1, S2, S3, S7, DR1, DR2, DR3, DR4, H4, H7, H9, H10, H13, H15, H16, T6, T8, T11, LA2, LA3, LA5, LA6 and NC1 and the relevant sustainability, housing and design aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework are satisfied

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.         HN01 – Mud on Highway

 

3.         HN04 – Private Apparatus Within Highway

 

4.         HN05 – Works Within the Highway

 

5.         HN07 – Section 278 Agreement

 

6.         HN10 – No Drainage to Discharge to Highway