Erection of 150 dwellings (mix of 1-5 bed), new employment (commercial and live work units), community building, 1.4 hectares of public open space, community orchards and allotments, play areas, cycle and footpaths, bus stop and pedestrian crossing.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

 

Members had asked for clarification on a number of points at the recent Planning Committee Site Inspection. The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

 

·         The distance from the development to the community centre and shop was 600m, the distance to the Doctors’ Surgery and school was less than 150 metres.

·         The land transfer to the housing association had been put on hold pending the outcome of the proposed application and an additional appeal for 35 dwellings at Kingstone.

·         The proposed cladding, Cedar and UK grown Douglas Fir, would have a life span of approximately 60 years.

·         The Passivhaus standard was the most rigorous in Europe and resulted in heating costs of £70 per year.

·         There were currently 470 households in Kingstone and the population, based upon average occupancy of 2.3 persons, was estimated at 1081 people, making it the fifth largest village in the County.

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 Hines and Mr Murrin-Earp, the applicant and a supporter, 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:

 

·         The local residents were unhappy with the application with 95% of local people in objection to it.

·         A freedom of information request had identified that £3000 had been paid to the Planning Department in 2011 for pre-application advice.

·         Reference had also been made in the report to CIL contributions to the Council.

·         Surprised that officers had not declared an interest in the application.

·         Further concerned that it appeared that the case officer was reviewing his own work.

·         The local MP had also stated that the application had been handled incorrectly.

·         A comment was made regarding an email exchange between the case officer and the Housing Development Manager, with particular mention made of the informal tone of the correspondence.

 

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman interjected on three occasions to advise the local ward member in respect of comments made about the case officer. The local ward member was further advised to limit his comments to matters regarding the application. Following the advice from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman the local ward member made the following comments:

 

·         35 new homes in the area had been refused by the Planning Committee recently.

·         The reasons given for refusing the previous application in Kingstone included; the application was outside of the settlement boundary; the application did not satisfy the exceptional criteria as set out in the NPPF; the application was contrary to 3,5 and 6 of policy H10 of the UDP; the proposed development was a mixed development; the application was deficient in terms of paragraph 14 of the NPPF; the impact would outweigh the benefits of the application; the application was contrary to UDP policies DR1, H4 and H13 in terms of character and size, and the application was contrary to UDP policy CF2.

·         The same reasons for refusal should be given to refuse the proposed application.

·         The Parish Council’s concerns in respect of the application were reiterated.

·         Mr Madison had recently been contacted by Mr Hines and Mr Pryce regarding the sports field. Mr Madison’s view had not changed and he still had concerns regarding the proposed path.

·         The applicants had failed to understand the importance of sport to the people of Kingstone.

·         There were safety issues with people cycling in close proximity to football pitches.

·         The case officer had omitted some statistics in his presentation regarding the need for affordable houses in the area. The figure for Kingstone was 15 units required.

·         The spend was estimated at being £11m prior to a house being sold on the development.

·         Some concern was expressed regarding the change in business name since the correspondence with the Council had first begun in 2008 Hereford Eco Village was incorporated in 2008 [Amended at Planning Committee Meeting on 26 June 2013[.

The debate was opened with a Member voicing his concerns in respect of the scale and form of the proposed application and the detrimental impact it would have on the village of Kingstone. Concerns were also expressed in respect of drainage and impact on the road network.

 

Another Member addressed the Committee with an opposing view. She considered that the application was an exemplar of sustainable development and was welcomed at a time when the world was facing serious climate change.

 

Some Members of the Committee continued to voice their concerns in respect of the application. Particular comment was made regarding the impact the application would have on the existing drainage network; the impact the application would have on the road network in the South-Wye area; concern regarding the design, scale and mass of the development; issues regarding a lack of jobs in the area and the large number of proposed dwellings in relation to the affordable units required in Kingstone. It was also considered that 150 additional houses in a small village was too significant an increase and that the development should be taken stage by stage in consultation with the local residents.

 

One Member of the Committee made a significant number of points in support of the application, including:

 

·         The application site would be developed at some stage in the future.

·         The application was visionary.

·         In future energy costs would continue to rise.

·         Visited an existing Passivhaus in the County, which was a retrofit design but had still benefitted from a 70% reduction in fuel bills.

·         Shared space had been proved to work in Cheshire where a busy junction had been converted to a shared space with no incidents.

·         If there were concerns regarding the loss of any sports facilities then Sport England would object and the application would not be able to proceed.

·         The professional advice was that the drainage proposal was acceptable.

·         The Traffic Manager was happy with the access and egress to the site.

·         The houses need to be aligned in a certain way to ensure sufficient light to ensure the Passivhaus standard was maintained.

·         The density of the proposed dwelling was lower than the rest of the village.

·         The application would be good for the County with Herefordshire having the first Passivhaus development in the Country.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the development would take place in three phases; each phase would then be split into sub-phases. This would result in approximately 15 – 20 dwellings being constructed each year. Condition 4 of the recommendation addressed the proposed phasing and could be amended if the Committee wished for further restrictions to be put in place. In response to a further question he advised that all of the proposed dwellings would be constructed in a new production facility at Rotherwas.

 

The Committee continued to debate the application, some members spoke in support and reiterated the comments made previously, others spoke in objection and shared the concerns previously raised.

 

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

 

·         Members had mentioned that the application was an improvement on a standard housing development, this was not agreed with as a company such as Barrett Homes had 50 years’ experience in house building, the applicant in this case had none.

·         The proposed development was too large.

·         The local residents were in objection to the application.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to:

 

1. The completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report.

 

2. The conditions set out in this report and any varied or additional conditions considered necessary by officers.

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

3.         B07 Section 106 Agreement

 

4.         No development shall commence until a plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority identifying the construction phasing of the development.  The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed phasing plan unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To ensure the acceptable phasing of the construction and to comply with Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

6.         E03 Site observation - archaeology

 

7.         F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

 

8.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

 

9.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

10.       G14 Landscape management plan

 

11.       The business floorspace of each live/work unit shall be finished and ready for occupation before the residential floorspace for that unit is occupied and the residential use shall not precede commencement of the business use.

 

Reason: To ensure the business floospace is constructed and brought into use concurrently with the residential to achieve the live/work format and comply with Sections 1 and 3 of the NPPF.

 

12.       The business floorspace of each live/work unit shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes within Class B1 in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy DR2, E8 and E9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

13.       The residential floorspace of each live/work unit shall not be occupied other than by a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the business occupying the business floorspace of that unit, a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.

 

Reason: To ensure the linkages between the residential and business floorspace is retained and to protect the amenity of nearby properties in accordance with UDP policy DR2.

 

14.       F14 Removal of permitted development rights (fences and frontage hardstanding)

 

15.       H03 Visibility splays

 

16.       H08 Access closure

 

17.       H11 Parking - estate development (more than one house)

 

18.       H18 On site roads - submission of details

 

19.       No development shall take place until a construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved statement shall include details of deliveries and timing,

a) construction compound(s)

b) hours of work,

c) traffic and parking management scheme and

d) measures to keep the highway free of mud.

The approved statement shall thereafter be implemented for the duration of the construction unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority in writing.

 

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area and highway safety and to comply with policies DR3 & DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary development Plan.

 

20.       H30 Travel plans

 

21.       No construction works shall commence on any phase of the development that is to be connected to the public sewage system until a hydraulic modelling assessment has been completed by the developer in consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh water in order to establish a point of discharge of the new foul drainage system serving the proposed development to a point of adequacy on the existing public sewerage system, together with any necessary associated foul sewerage infrastructure works.

 

There shall be no beneficial use of any buildings on site that are to be connected to the public sewerage system until any necessary foul sewerage infrastructure works required by the hydraulic modelling assessment have been completed and approved by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and the local planning authority has been informed in writing of its completion.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not adversely affect the integrity of the existing public sewage system and to prevent pollution of the environment and to comply with policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

22.       I18 Scheme of foul and surface water drainage disposal

 

23.       I33 External lighting

 

24.       I45 Restriction of open storage

 

25.       I51 Details of slab levels

 

26.       K2 Nature Conservation - site protection

 

27.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

 

28.       F06 Restriction on Use       

 

Reason for Approval

 

1.         This is an innovative development proposal that is a radical and positive departure from conventional modern housing developments.  The proposal is a mixed use development that embraces all aspects of the NPPF and Policies:

 

S1                    -           Sustainable Development

S2                    -           Development Requirements

S3                    -           Housing

S4                    -           Employment

S6                    -           Transport

S7                    -           Natural and Historic Heritage

S8                    -           Recreation, Sport and Tourism

S10                  -           Waste

S11                  -           Community Facilities and Services

DR1                 -           Design

DR2                 -           Land Use and Activity

DR3                 -           Movement

DR4                 -           Environment

DR5                 -           Planning Obligations

DR7                 -           Flood Risk

DR13               -           Noise

DR14               -           Lighting

H4                    -           Main Villages: Settlement Boundaries

H7                    -           Housing in the Countryside Outside Settlements

H9                    -           Affordable Housing

H13                  -           Sustainable Residential Design

H16                  -           Car parking

H19                  -           Open Space Requirements

E8                    -           Design Standards for Employment Sites

E10                  -           Employment Proposals in or Adjacent to Main Villages

TCR14                        -          Village Commercial Facilities

T1                    -           Public Transport Facilities

T6                    -           Walking

T7                    -           Cycling

T8                    -           Road Hierarchy

T11                  -           Parking Provision

LA2                 -           Landscape Character

LA3                 -           Setting of Settlements

LA5                 -           Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

LA6                 -           Landscaping Schemes

NC1                 -           Biodiversity and Development

NC3                 -           Sites of National Importance

NC4                 -           Sites of Local Importance

NC6                 -           Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats and Species

NC8                 -           Habitat Creation, Restoration and Enhancement

NC9                 -           Management of Features for the Landscape Important for Fauna and Flora

ARCH 1          -           Archaeological Assessment and Field Evaluations

ARCH6           -           Recording of archaeological remains

RST1               -           Criteria for Recreation, Sport and Tourism Development

RST3               -           Standards for Outdoor Playing and Public Open Space

W11                 -           Development and Waste Implications

CF2                 -           Foul Drainage

CF5                 -           New Community Facilities

 

and is capable of delivery without compromising on the quality, design and functionality of the development.  All technical matters including drainage, landscape, biodiversity, transport and employment have been addressed or can be addressed through conditions and the Section 106 Agreement.  The development will also maintain and enhance the vitality and harmony of the community without harming its physical or social characteristics.   Finally, the environmental sustainability of the buildings in particular is exemplar and would set the benchmark for other developments both within the county and elsewhere to follow.

 

Whilst the considerable local objection is acknowledged, the application is considered compliant with the NPPF and the relevant UDP policies that are consistent with the NPPF and having regard to the Councils deficit in deliverable housing land and applying the NPPF test of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the development is considered acceptable.

           

 

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.         N02 Section 106 Obligation

 

3.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

4.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement