Proposed erection of 30 no dwellings including 10 affordable units and associated works to provide new access and road.

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

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 Vaughan, representing Pyons Group Parish Council, and Mrs McLeod, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The Parish Council were in support of development within the village but had concerns in respect of the proposed site.

·         The application would usually be deemed as contrary to Policy H7 of the UDP.

·         The NPPF gave a presumption in support of sustainable development due to the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing supply.

·         The emerging NPPF promoted localism, the Committee should note the concerns of the local residents and the Parish Council.

·         The only Neighbourhood Plan in the Country had recently been adopted in Cumbria, the Parish Council should not be criticised for not having an adopted Plan.

·         The parish Plan promoted a central hub and did not support development outside of the settlement boundary.

·         The Committee refused the previous application on the site.

·         Growth was needed in the County however any growth had to be right.

·         Further discussion regarding the Section 106 agreement was welcomed.

The debate was opened with two Members of the committee noting the concerns of the Parish Council and the local residents but advising that the committee’s decision should be based on material planning considerations. It was noted that the current application had addressed a number of the issues that had led to a previous application on the site being refused. The applicant’s offer to investigate an alternative method of drainage, such as a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme, was welcomed, with one of the members stating that this should form a condition if planning permission was granted.

Another Member of the Committee drew Members attention to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that brownfield sites should be developed ahead of greenfield sites. He noted the concerns of the Parish Council and considered that the application should be refused. This view was supported by other Members of the Committee who were of the opinion that considerable weight should be given to the views of the Parish Council and the local residents in determining the application.

Members continued to discuss the application and had a number of concerns regarding the drainage issues on the site. It was noted that the neighbouring residents had taken a number of photographs showing the site in a waterlogged state, it was also noted that the drainage report had noted that there were issues regarding drainage on the site however the report had concluded that these issues could be overcome. Further concern was expressed regarding the lack of children’s play provision on the site; the density of the site; and the lack of bungalows as part of the proposed affordable housing.

In response to a number of question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·         there was an identified brownfield site which had been allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan. However he added that this site had never been bought forward for development;

·         it was the housing association’s preference to group the affordable housing together rather than integrate the homes throughout the site;

·         there were 44 parking spaces on the site which accorded with policy;

·         there would be a technical solution to the drainage issues;

·         he did not have details regarding the number of times the site had flooded over the previous year;

·         a traffic survey had not been undertaken, however the Highways Engineer was content with the application.

Another Member of the Committee noted that there were other sites available in the village and considered that this was a material planning consideration. He also had concerns in respect of the proposed layout of the development with particular concern being expressed regarding the roadside dwellings.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that permission should be granted in accordance with the NPPF unless refusing the application significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of approving it. He added that it was regrettable that the Parish Plan had not yet been developed and advised the Committee that refusing the application on technical grounds or with reference to the neighbourhood plan could leave the authority subject to an appeal.

Councillor Blackshaw was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         If the LDF had been adopted the Parish Plan would be viewed differently.

·         If the application was approved the Section 106 agreement should be reviewed in consultation with the Parish Council and the Local Ward Member.

·         There were concerns regarding the roadside affordable housing.

·         If the application was granted the applicant should be required to provide a mature hedge as part of the landscaping conditions.

Members were requested to clarify their reasons for refusing the application. The Committee were of the opinion that the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies H4, H7, H15, H19, and DR1 together with sections 7, 8, and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The site is within the countryside outside of the settlement boundary for Canon Pyon as defined in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. The development does not satisfy any of the exception criteria within Policy H7 and therefore the development is contrary to this policy. The development is also considered to adversely impact upon the visual character of the area and therefore, notwithstanding the current deficiency in the supply of housing land, the adverse landscape impact is considered to outweigh the benefits of the development. Consequently, the development is contrary to Policies DR1, H4, H7 and DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposal fails to reinforce the distinctive character or appearance of the locality due to its layout and density, creating a suburban road frontage in a rural village, contrary to Policies DR1, H13 and H15 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         The site is prone to waterlogging and surface water flooding and the applicant has failed to demonstrate how adequate provision can be made for the disposal of surface water contrary to Policies DR1 and Dr4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         The scheme fails to make adequate provision of outdoor play space and is contrary to Policy H19 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.         The application is not accompanied by a completed Section 106 Agreement considered necessary to make the development acceptable and is therefore contrary to Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.

Informative

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 and by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reason(s) for refusal.  Furthermore, Members of the planning committee which took the decision to refuse planning permission have been asked to consider whether there are opportunities to amend the development to address this harm.  Where a potential way forward has been identified, this has been communicated to the Applicant. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.