Proposed outline permission for a residential development of 15 no. dwellings with associated infrastructure including alterations on A438 + drainage and landscaping with all matters reserved except for access.

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 Geeson, representing Breinton Parish Council and Col. Farnes, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Tagg, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The concerns of the local residents and Parish Council should be noted.

·         Three previous applications on the site had been refused at appeal.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy H7, although its standing under the National Planning Policy Framework was noted.

·         The application should be considered on its merits and full consideration should be given to the impact resulting from the development.

·         The access and impact on the highway make the application unacceptable.

·         There had been a number of unrecorded accidents over the previous years.

·         The layby was extremely well used and its removal would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

·         The application was contrary to UDP policies DR3 and DR4.

·         In December 2012 the ditch had flooded resulting in 18 inches of water entering neighbouring resident’s homes.

·         The Council engineers had historically noted that there was a problem with drainage in the area.

·         There was nowhere for the water to go at the point where the culvert terminated at 304-306 Kings Acre Road.

·         Public footpaths in the area had also been flooded.

·         Local residents had reported issues with insurance companies due to the flooding concerns in the area.

·         The report refers to drains and ditches that do not exist.

·         Wyevale had expressed their concerns in an email and stated that they objected to the application.

·         It was noted that the report which the housing shortfall figures had been based on was a report up to the end of 2011, what was the actual shortfall now.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee speaking in objection to the application. Concerns in respect of the surface water issues, drainage issues, the closure of the layby and the decision to locate the proposed play facility some distance away at Westfaling Street were all expressed.

Further debate took place in respect of the flooding issues on the site. One Member voiced his concern in respect of the proposed ditches and balancing ponds and stated that their presence clearly indicated that there was an issue with drainage on the site. He also expressed concern regarding the removal of trees and shrubs from the site and questioned whether the application was in fact sustainable. Another member echoed the concerns in respect of drainage and advised the applicant to consider a wet drainage system and the use of porous surfaces to assist in alleviating the current drainage problems. She also raised concern regarding the loss of the badger setts on the site.

Another member noted that two balancing ponds were required on the site, with one being of a significant size. He had concerns regarding the future monitoring of the ponds as well as the safety of the ponds in respect of children from the proposed new dwellings.

The Committee were unanimous in their support of the local ward member, the parish council and the local residents who had objected to the application. Members voiced their concerns in respect of the application and put forward reasons for refusal, namely: an unacceptable impact of surface water; the closure of the layby would not be in the interest of highway safety; an unacceptable Section 106 agreement in terms of the location of the play area and the impact on the badger setts within the site.

The Planning Lawyer advised that Members needed to be satisfied that the reasons for refusal put forward could be supported by sound evidence in light of any potential appeal.

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

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1          The Council is not satisfied that the information supplied with the application demonstrates that the proposed mitigation measures would address the risk of flooding or the potential adverse impact on the dwellings and infrastructure in the locality in relation to surface water run-off. As such the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Policies DR4 and DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. "

2          The proposed highway improvements to the A438 (namely the partial closure of the existing layby) required to ensure satisfactory visibility when exiting Breinton Lee onto the A438 would, when having regard to its siting, location and frequency of use, give rise to indiscriminate parking of on the highway to the detriment of visibility and ability for vehicles to manoeuvre safely. Consequently its loss would not be in the interests of highway safety and the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3          The proposed development fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the identified protected species (Badgers) and their habitat can be retained or satisfactorily mitigated to ensure that there is not an adverse impact on the protected species or their habitat. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies NCI, NC7 and NC8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and requirements contained within Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The proposal fails to incorporate outdoor playing space and public open space in accordance with the requirements of Policy HI9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. The proposed 'off site' contribution proposed is considered to be inappropriate and not reasonably related to the site and proposals due to the separation and distance from the site.

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 Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations.