Proposed development of 12 nos. dwellings consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.

Refused, contrary to case officer’s recommendation.

Proposed development of 12 nos. dwellings consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market.  Works to include new road and landscaping.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  The following amendments to the report were identified:

•        Paragraph 6.11 of the report should refer to ‘the setting of three two nearby listed buildings’.

•        Paragraph 3 of the draft Heads of Terms appended to the report should refer to ‘The Millennium Green which is owned and maintained by the Parish Council Kingsland Millennium Green Trust’.

•        Minor amendments were made to the wording of the recommendation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Sharp-Smith, a local resident, spoke in objection and Mrs W Schenke, the applicant, spoke in support of the application; Mrs Schenke, due to her employment with the council, then left the meeting.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  Councillor Bowen made a number of points, including:

1.       The committee was thanked for undertaking a site inspection.

2.       Attention was drawn to the planning history and the reasons for refusal in relation to two previous applications for affordable housing units on this site.  It was noted that the current application was for open market and affordable housing.

3.       It was commented that the adjacent affordable housing development known as Kingsleane was of high quality in terms of both design and setting.

4.       The position with the published absence of a five-year housing land supply, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), was acknowledged but this should not override other material planning considerations.

5.       Development should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and attention was drawn to the comments of both the Conservation Manager (Landscape) and the Conservation Manager (Built Environment).

6.       The layout and design of this application were considered mundane and suburban and would not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.  It was also disappointing that the proposal did not include energy efficiency measures.

7.       Although Welsh Water had no objections, there were drainage capacity issues in the locality and perhaps this could be addressed by a willow bed drainage system on the site.

8.       It was suggested that the proposal should be rejected or deferred until better designs and layout came forward.  If the application was to be approved, higher standards should be required to ensure that development made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and to the village as a whole.

9.       Further clarity was needed about the maintenance of hedgerows and about the provision of footpaths.

10.     It was considered unfortunate that there had only been a ten year requirement to manage the site as a hay meadow.

11.     Referring to the draft Heads of Terms, it was questioned why St Mary’s Roman Catholic School had been identified as a potential recipient of educational infrastructure contributions, as there were other schools nearer to the site.   Comments were also made about the identified contributions towards off-site play facilities, indoor facilities, bus infrastructure, and waste reduction and recycling.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

a.       Although the NPPF indicated a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the planning authority should still insist on the highest possible standards. 

b.       The local ward member’s comments were supported, particularly in respect of design, energy efficiency features, drainage, hedgerows, footpaths, and educational infrastructure.

c.       It was considered regrettable that the biodiversity interest of the hay meadow had been lost and it was suggested that the restoration of part of it could be required as a condition on any planning permission granted.  It was also commented that such features should be protected in perpetuity rather than for a set period.

d.       A number of members felt unable to support the application in its current form, especially given the comments of the Conservation Managers.

e.       It was noted that the housing land supply issue related only to the supply of housing, it did not impact on other adopted policies.

f.        A concern was expressed about the position of affordable housing units.

g.       It was considered that this was potentially an acceptable site to develop in terms of its relationship to the village, however the design and layout needed to be improved substantially in line with the Conservation Managers’ comments.

h.       It was noted that the condition of the hedgerows needed urgent attention.

In response to comments made by members, the Development Manager confirmed that the impact of the development on heritage assets was a material planning consideration which was unaffected by the housing land supply issue.

A committee member did not consider that deferral would necessarily achieve the fundamental changes required to the proposal and emphasised the need to recognise and preserve the unique assets of small settlements and where development is permitted high standards of design and layout are incorporated.  It was considered that, whilst the site might be appropriate for some form of development, the current application was deficient in terms of design/layout and would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Bowen commented that: it was apparent that the committee was fully aware of the importance of the Conservation Area; there were significant concerns about the current application; there were many good examples of vernacular architecture in the county that could inform any future proposal.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed development by reason of its design and layout does not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area and therefore will have a detrimental impact on the setting of the settlement.  The proposed development is accordingly considered contrary to Policies HBA6, LA3 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.       No completed Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relationship to planning obligations accompanied the application.  Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.