Residential development (up to 120 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

The decision on this application is now within the jurisdiction of a Planning Inspector.

The Committee indicated that if it had been able to determine the application  it would have been minded to delegate authority to officers to refuse planning permission, 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, as appended to these Minutes.

He highlighted that the applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination with the Planning Inspectorate.  The Inspectorate had confirmed that the appeal was valid and that jurisdiction for decision-taking on the application was no longer with the local planning authority.

The Principal Planning Officer stated it was proposed, however, as indicated in the changed recommendation in the update to the Committee that Members made a resolution confirming how they would have determined the application were it within their jurisdiction.  This would inform the forthcoming appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr N White, Chairman of Hampton Bishop Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He supported the Parish Council’s principal grounds for objecting to the Scheme: concern about the risk of increased flooding and the effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

·         He noted that when the applicant had given a public presentation on the matter they had indicated an intention to build 95 dwellings rather than up to 120 as now proposed.

·         The comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscapes) set out in the report condemned the Scheme.

·         In Herefordshire Council’s Urban Fringe Sensitivity Analysis (USFA) (January 2010), the site was described as lying within a zone defined as having High Sensitivity.  The slope on which the development would in part be built was described as highly visible.

·         A development of 120 dwellings was inappropriate in this prominent, historic and highly sensitive location.

·         He suggested that policies DR1, LA2, LA3 and HBA4 were grounds for refusal.

·         The applicants were arguing that the Section 106 agreement should be Community Infrastructure Levy compliant and there was no certainty as to any contribution that would be forthcoming to benefit the community.

·         Traffic calming measures were required together with a solution to car parking pressures associated with the local schools.

Councillor JLV Kenyon, an adjoining Ward Member, was invited to speak.  He spoke in support of the Scheme and commented on a number of issues including:

·         There appeared to be little public opposition to the Scheme.

·         There was an identified need for new housing in the area including affordable housing and bungalows.

·         The Section 106 agreement provided an opportunity to bring about a number of improvements to the benefit of community including measures to address traffic calming and traffic generated by the schools, improvements to Ledbury Road and access to the City.  School capacity was of concern.  A contribution to school infrastructure would therefore be needed.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The comments of the local ward member and the Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had highlighted the impact of the scheme on a sensitive and beautiful landscape.  The development would be visible, despite the proposed mitigation measures, and unacceptable.

·         It was suggested that there were parallels with the recent application at Home Farm, Belmont and there were grounds for refusal on the grounds of the impact on the landscape and an historic building.

·         That the City Council had sought to preserve the approaches to the City including Aylestone Hill and it would be regrettable if the permission were to be granted for the proposed harmful development at Hampton Dene.  It was noted that an application had recently been submitted for a development at Aylestone Hill.

·         The risk that the development would increase flooding was discussed and whether National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 103 would therefore form another ground for refusal.  The Development Manager commented that the technical advice was that the water retention measures proposed as part of the development would reduce the amount of surface water running off the site.

·         In response to comments made about the traffic implications the Development Manager commented that the Traffic Manager had no objection to the proposal. 

·         That the application represented overdevelopment.  It might be possible to accommodate a smaller development, removed from the ridge, within the landscape.  Reference was made to the compromise eventually reached with the developer of Porthouse Farm, Bromyard as reflected in the application considered earlier in the meeting.

·         Hereford City Council had not objected to the application.  Neither had there been any significant local opposition.  Hampton Bishop Parish Council had objected but it was on the boundary of the Parish.  The view of residents of the neighbouring Tupsley ward was that more affordable housing was a priority and this was reflected in the City Plan to which a Planning Inspector would have regard.  The question was whether the impact on the landscape outweighed the other considerations in favour of the development.

·         If the Scheme did proceed it was to be hoped that the developer would ensure that the design was to a high standard.

·         That the Council should be robust in its discussions over any S106 Agreement.

·         Several Members suggested there were a number of grounds for indicating support for refusal:  principally policies LA2, LA3 relating to the character of the landscape, HBA4, and NPPF paragraph 109.  It was suggested that other policies were also relevant:  LD1, H7, S7 and LA4.

·         The Development Manager commented that in considering the planning balance, including taking account of the appeal decision at Home Farm, Belmont,  officers had concluded that the absence of a five year supply of housing land outweighed the concerns about the harm to the landscape. There were 5 letters of objection to what was a substantial scheme and the developer had carried out a leaflet drop to over 500 dwellings.  In considering the value of the landscape account needed to be taken of the fact that the site was not subject to any national or local designation that indicated that development ought to be restricted.  His advice was that Members should support the Scheme.  However, it was arguable that were grounds for refusing the application because of the weight attached to the harm to the landscape character on the grounds of policies LA2, LA3, LA4, HBA4 and the NPPF paragraph 109.

·         The Legal Officer reminded the Committee that consideration needed to be given to the Council’s ability to defend an appeal.  She did not consider on the basis of the evidence presented that concerns about traffic issues and the risk of flooding were grounds for refusal.  Even given the objection of the Conservation Officer (Landscapes) set out in the report there was still a risk that any appeal could be lost given the presumption within the NPPF and that costs could be awarded against the Council.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged that the decision was finely balanced but he remained opposed to the Scheme because of the impact on the landscape.

RESOLVED:That the Committee would have been minded to delegate authority to officers to refuse planning permission on the basis that it is contrary to policies LA2, LA3, LA4, HBA4 and NPPF 109 and that this position is adopted in appeal proceedings.