Development of up to 290 dwellings, including affordable housing, public open space, access, landscaping, ground modelling and associated works.

Approved, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

Development of up to 290 dwellings, including affordable housing, public open space, access, landscaping, ground modelling and associated works.

 

As Councillor PGH Cutter took his position as a local ward member, Councillor PA Andrews was in the Chair for this item.

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  It was reported that:

 

•        The Head of Terms for the proposed planning obligation agreement had not been included in the agenda as there had been a delay in the completion of a plan by the parks department in respect of investment required in sports improvements for the town.  The plan identified deficiencies in sports pitch provision and associated infrastructure.  Therefore, a contribution of £143,715 was now sought.

 

•        The Heads of Terms would also include contributions towards a new controlled crossing facility on Ledbury Road, sustainable transport measures, enhanced educational infrastructure, waste reduction and recycling, and library facilities.

 

•        In light of the need for further discussions on the Heads of Terms, minor amendments were made to the wording of the recommendation; as reproduced in the resolution below.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Wakefield, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AM Atkinson and Councillor PGH Cutter, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

 

Councillor Atkinson made a number of points, including:

 

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

 

2.       Additional housing was needed in Ross on Wye and some form of development of this site was possible but there were significant issues that had to be addressed, especially road safety.

 

3.       The A40 was described as a very fast stretch of road, particularly given its proximity to the M50, and local residents were not convinced that vehicle speeds had reduced.

 

4.       The site was physically divorced from the main body of Ross on Wye; a comparison was made with Greytree which was served by a bridge and an underpass.

 

5.       The new residents of the development would expect road safety to be of paramount importance and this had to be addressed as part of this proposal.

 

6.       Pedestrian and cycle connectivity to the town had not yet been secured for the recent Persimmon Homes development.

 

7.       Road narrowing to reduce speeds was supported but there also needed to be sufficient reservations for pedestrians to cross safely.

 

8.       There were significant road infrastructure issues in the town, with numerous single track pinch points, and the planning obligation agreement should identify contributions to help to alleviate these problems, particularly as additional vehicle movements from the development would exacerbate the situation.

 

9.       It was noted that there was an error in the draft Heads of Terms, as reference should be made to the recycling centre at Ross on Wye, not Leominster.

 

10.     It was important that officers, in consultation with the local ward members, looked closely at the road safety issues and connectivity to the town.

 

Councillor Cutter supported the comments of Councillor Atkinson and made a number of further points, including:

 

i.        An overview was given of the road network and the existing traffic problems.

 

ii.       It was estimated that the development could involve approximately 900 residents, with 700 vehicles.

 

iii.      It was noted that schools, facilities and services were located on opposite sides to the development and it was essential that safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists was secured from the outset.

 

iv.      The need to deal with existing issues with traffic and congestion in the town was emphasised.

 

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

 

a.       In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application was made in outline with all matters apart from access reserved for future consideration.

 

b.       In view of the nature of the site, members would welcome high quality design and energy efficiency measures to feature strongly as part of any reserved matters application.

 

c.       The development would result in the enclosure of this section of the A40 by housing.  Consequently, the road needed to be perceived as a town road rather than a boundary road.  It was suggested that the Head of Terms should provide the financial means to address the identified issues and any problems that might arise subsequently.

 

d.       It was commented that it had taken years to secure a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reduce the speed limit to the west of Hereford city and a TRO should be considered as part of this application.  A number of members supported a reduction in the speed limit.

 

e.       Priority had to be given to pedestrians and cyclists, with pragmatic measures which minimised the potential for conflict between different users.  A member commented that this could be an appropriate location for innovative underpass solutions.  Other members supported surface crossings.

 

f.        It was questioned whether a condition could require the maintenance of a public right of way to the south.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the route fell outside the application site.

 

g.       It was suggested that, if suitable off-site provision could not be brought forward, there might be a need to incorporate sports pitch provision within the site.

 

h.       In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the A40 was no longer a trunk road and the plans included controlled crossing points, as well as uncontrolled pedestrian reservations at the roundabout approaches.

 

i.        In response to a suggestion, the Principal Planning Officer said that the primary purpose of protecting the land near to the Rudhall Brook from development was for biodiversity enhancement and the introduction of allotments might not serve to achieve that aim.

 

j.        It was suggested that further consideration be given to the position and access onto the roundabouts, to minimise the potential for congestion and accidents.

 

k.       It was questioned whether the undeveloped land could be protected in perpetuity  by a planning condition or an informative note be included, if the current application was granted planning permission.  The Development Manager suggested that this should not be necessary as any development would require planning permission and would have to be considered in accordance with policy.

 

l.        It was suggested that Ross Town Council be consulted about the draft Heads of Terms given the point made in the representations section of the report.

 

m.     In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer said that the mature hedgerow was to be retained as part of the scheme; it was felt that a solid boundary would appear suburban and would detract from the landscape quality.  A member suggested that the hedgerow be stock-proofed and maintained.

 

The Highways Engineering Manager responded to questions and comments from members, the main points included:

 

·                Since initial discussions through to detailed negotiations, road safety remained a key concern of officers and the applicant.

 

·                Connectivity to the north, west and south of the site was explained.

 

·                Section 278 agreements enabled proposed works on existing highways to be scrutinised in detail, particularly to ensure that they conformed to design standards.

 

·                TROs were subject to the engineering measures that could be put forward; 30mph might be considered too low without housing frontage on the road.

 

·                Bridges and underpasses were explored but these were not desired solutions within the ‘Manual for Streets’ guidance; surface crossings were the preferred approach.

 

·                Roundabouts did influence vehicle speeds and additional measures, such as narrowing and surface treatments, would help to change the road environment.

 

The Development Manager commented that: other developments would be coming forward, in response to the five-year housing land supply issue and the housing growth identified in the Core Strategy; there were relatively few objections received in relation to this application given its scale; the committee had a good debate on this application, with the main focus on landscape, access and connectivity, and infrastructure requirements; and, although the code for sustainable homes was being abolished, the developer was likely to be mindful of the comments about energy efficiency measures for the reserved matters.

 

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Atkinson re-iterated that: there was a need for housing in the locality but it was critical that road safety was addressed; it was essential that the local ward members had input into the discussions on planning obligations and highways and connectivity matters; and, as road surface treatments could erode after a short time, appropriate weight should be given to permanent solutions.  Councillor Cutter commented that: the new residents of the Persimmon Homes development would be using the same roundabout; and local residents and the ward members had fought hard to secure safety improvements for other developments and would monitor the situation carefully with this site.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation agreement in accordance with terms to be finalised by officers, in consultation with the Chairman and local members, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions below and any further conditions that are considered necessary by officers.

 

1.       A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

 

2.       A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

 

3.       A04 Approval of reserved matters

 

4.       A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters

 

5.       E01 Site investigation - archaeology

 

6.       The recommendations set out in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 the ecologist’s report from Ecological Solutions Ltd. dated January 2014 should be followed in relation to the identified species and habitats. Prior to commencement of the development, a full working method statement for ecological works including the species mitigations with the full habitat protection and enhancements proposed should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved. An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

 

7.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

8.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

9.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

10.     L04 Comprehensive & Integrated draining of site

 

11.     Foul flows only from the proposed development shall be discharged to the 375mm public combined sewerage system located in Over Street, at or downstream of manhole SO60242601.

 

Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and to comply with Policy CF2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

12.     No development shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

 

a)      a 'desk study' report including previous site and adjacent site uses, potential contaminants arising from those uses, possible sources, pathways, and receptors, a conceptual model and a risk assessment in accordance with current best practice

b)      if the risk assessment in (a) confirms the possibility of a significant pollutant linkage(s), a site investigation should be undertaken to characterise fully the nature and extent and severity of contamination, incorporating a conceptual model of all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors

c)      if the risk assessment in (b) identifies unacceptable risk(s) a detailed scheme specifying remedial works and measures necessary to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The Remediation Scheme shall include consideration of and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination encountered shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for written approval.

 

Reason: In order that any potential risks from contaminated land are properly assessed and to comply with Policy DR10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

13.     The Remediation Scheme, as approved pursuant to condition no. (12) above, shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied. On completion of the remediation scheme the developer shall provide a validation report to confirm that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details, which must be submitted before the development is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme including the validation reporting shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken.

 

Reason: In order that any potential risks from contaminated land are properly assessed and to comply with Policy DR10 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

14.     Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the applicant or any successor in title shall enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to determine the extent and precise details of highway improvement works required along the A40. The works as approved shall be completed in accordance with a timetable to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: In order to provide an appropriate means of access to the site and to comply with Policies H13 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

15.     I13 Scheme to protect new dwellings from road noise

 

16.     H17 Junction improvement/off site works

 

17.     H21 Wheel washing

 

18.     H30 Travel plans

 

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, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.       HN01 Mud on highway

 

3.       HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

4.       HN05 Works within the highway

 

5.       HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

6.       HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

7.       HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway