Outline application for 8 affordable dwellings, use of and amendments to access and provision of treatment plant.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Outline application for 8 affordable dwellings, use of and amendments to access and provision of treatment plant.)

 

The Senior 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.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Baly, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr B Griffin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward members, Councillors DG Harlow and JF Johnson, spoke on the application.

 

Councillor Johnson made the following principal comments:

 

·        The development was in a rural setting and the effect upon the setting needed to be balanced against the provision of housing and community benefits.

·        There was a requirement for affordable housing in rural areas and provision of housing for a diverse range of age groups.

·        Orcop was an extremely rural, very dispersed settlement with no local amenities.  The public house had closed.

·        Access roads were precarious in the winter months and were also under pressure from the heavier traffic associated with modern farming. 

·        Orcop Parish Council objected to the proposal.  Much Dewchurch Parish Council did not object to or support the application but had raised a number of concerns critical of the proposal.

Councillor Harlow made the following principal comments:

 

·        The proposal was far from ideal.

·        The village had no shop or amenities.

·        The access lanes were narrow and unsuitable.

·        A number of previous applications for development on the site had been refused.

·        Although three Parish Councils had been consulted Orcop was the parish most affected by the proposal and Orcop Parish Council had objected to the proposal.

·        There was a need for affordable housing, even if this was not for existing Orcop residents.

·        The provision of housing might increase support for local facilities such as the closed public house.

·        The application demonstrated the importance of developing Neighbourhood Plans.

·        He was undecided on the application.  If it were to be approved conditions would be needed to control parking, traffic and access.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

 

·        The access lane was very narrow.  The situation was made more problematic by the larger farming vehicles now being used, making the lane unsafe.

·        One view questioned the need for 8 additional affordable houses.  An opposing view was that there would be a demand.

·        The site was very isolated but so were a number of settlements in the County.

·        There were problems with water run-off and foul drainage.   The development was high on a hill and would exacerbate these problems.

·        The application was in the open countryside on the crest of a hill and should be refused for the same reasons as the application on a similar site described at paragraph 3.2 of the report.

·        The only grounds on which the site’s development could be permitted was as a rural exception site.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the section 106 agreement would ensure the dwellings would remain affordable housing in perpetuity.  The detail of tenure would be discussed with the local ward members and Parish Councils.

·        Paragraph 3.3 of the report noted that the application referred to at paragraph 3.2 had been refused for being contrary to Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy H10 (rural exception sites).  However, the UDP could no longer be solely relied upon to determine the acceptability of the application before the Committee.

·        The Development Manager commented that Orcop was a settlement identified for proportionate growth in the emerging Core Strategy.  In a number of areas the requirement to provide additional housing meant that sites previously not considered suitable for development were having to be revisited.  The proposal provided affordable housing for which there was a need and had other environmental benefits as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposed drainage system involving the provision of a treatment plant would not affect other properties.

·        The report’s conclusion that the site was sustainable was questioned noting the absence of amenities.  The application would have been refused at the outset if it had not been solely for affordable housing.  It was, however, important that affordable housing was provided in sustainable locations.  The accessibility of a site, the availability of services, transport and schools had a bearing on affordability.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate. 

Councillor Harlow commented that if the development had not been solely for affordable housing he would have been opposed to it.  The site was not in a good location.  There were local objections to it.

 

Councillor Johnson considered the application to be finely balanced.  An application not for affordable housing would not have been countenanced.  The development did provide an opportunity for young people to move to the Parish.

 

RESOLVED: That authority be delegated to officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers to grant outline planning permission for the development subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement providing the requisite legal mechanism to provide and secure the provision of affordable units and subject to the following conditions:

 

1.               A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission) – Landscaping & Scale

 

2.         A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

 

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters – Landscaping & Scale

 

4.         A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters – Landscaping & Scale

 

5.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

6.         The recommendations for species survey and mitigation with habitat enhancements set out in the ecologist’s report from Wyedean Ecology dated December 2014 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the scheme shall be carried out as approved.  On completion of further surveys specified, confirmation of the results together with any mitigation required should be made in writing to the local planning authority together with enhancement measures proposed.

 

            An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

            Reasons:

 

            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 and NC7 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

            To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Policy NC8 and NC9 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the NPPF and the NERC Act 2006.

 

7.         G11 – Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

8.         I51 Details of slab levels

 

9.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

10.       H06 - Vehicular access construction

 

11.       H09 - Driveway gradient

 

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

 

13.       H13 - Access, turning area and parking

 

14.       H17 - Junction improvement/off site works

 

15.       I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

16.       I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

 

17.       Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, adoption and maintenance schemes for the foul and surface water drainage systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The foul and surface water drainage systems shall be adopted and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

 

            Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to comply with Policy DR4 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

18.       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 the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

19.       The Remediation Scheme, as approved pursuant to condition no. 18 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 the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

20.       If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, an amendment to the Method Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

 

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

 

21.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

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.         HN01 – Mud on highway

 

3.         HN04 – Private apparatus within the highway (Compliance with the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991,  the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Highways Act 1980

 

4.         HN05 – Works within the highway (Compliance with the Highways Act 1980 and the Traffic Management Act 2004)

 

5.         HN07 – Section 278 Agreement

 

6.         HN08 – Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

7.         HN10 – No drainage to discharge to highway

 

8.         HN22 – Works adjoining highway

 

9.         HN24 – Drainage other than via highway system

 

10.       HN28  – Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

11.       The contaminated land assessment required to by condition 18 of this permission must be undertaken in accordance with good practice guidance and needs to be carried out by a suitably competent person as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

12.       All investigations of potentially contaminated sites must undertake asbestos sampling and analysis as a matter of routine and this should be included with any submission.