Proposed residential development of 69 no dwellings of which 24 will be affordable, accompanied by associated infrastructure and public open space.

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

 

(Proposed residential development of 69 no dwellings of which 24 will be affordable, accompanied by associated infrastructure and public open space.)

 

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. 

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Bainbridge of Withington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  S Williams, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DW Greenow, spoke on the application.

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        He highlighted the Parish Council’s objection to the Scheme.  In particular, he commented that there had been no response to the Parish Council’s support for the principle of the provision of a village green in the centre of the development. The density of the development could be reduced to provide a village green. 

·        A buffer zone between the houses and the main road would be preferable.

·        The C1130 was used by heavy vehicles and they did not adhere to the speed limit.  The Parish Council had requested that consideration be given to a one way system.

·        The Parish Council had stated that part of the application site would in principle provide an acceptable location for development.  The question was whether the detail of the application that had been submitted was acceptable noting that it did not reflect the preferences expressed by the Parish Council including those in relation to layout, density and open space.

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

 

·        Improved community engagement might well have resulted in a proposal which the local community could support.  It was suggested there had been insufficient consultation.

·        No information had been submitted on the energy efficiency of the proposed housing.

·        The intention that the management of the public open space would be the responsibility of a management company was questioned.  It was requested that the Council’s executive should consider the level of financial contribution the Council would need to secure management of public open space for developments.

·        Differing views were expressed on the benefits or otherwise of village greens in the centre of developments.

·        The proposals for transport infrastructure in the draft heads of terms were welcomed.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was capacity in the school for all year groups.

·        The detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of Orchard view detracted from an otherwise acceptable proposal.

The Development Manager commented that the applicant had consulted extensively and had made changes to the scheme.  However, a point came where an applicant could not make further changes if the scheme were to remain achievable.  At 23 houses per hectare the density of the development was relatively low noting that the density of the development of the adjacent Southbank development was 31 houses per hectare.  Contributions were also offered for transport infrastructure.  No weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan.  Energy saving would be a key aspect of the design of the dwellings.  The site was acceptable for development.

 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that concerns about the proposed development remained, including the impact on Orchard View, and whilst the developer had listened to some of these further compromise might have been possible.

 

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary

 

1.         A01 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

           

2.         B03 Amended plans

 

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

4.         G04 Protection of tree/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

5.         G10 Landscaping scheme

 

6.         G11Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

7.         G14 Landscape management plan

 

8.         G19 Details of play equipment

 

9.         H03 Visibility splays

 

10.       H05 Access gates

 

11.       H06 Vehicular access construction

 

12.       H11 Parking – estate development

 

13.       H17 Junction improvements/off site works

 

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

15.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

16.       I51 Details of slab levels

 

17.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

18.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

19.       L03 No drainage run off to public system

 

20.       L04 Comprehensive and integrated draining of site

 

21.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from Betts Ecology dated January 2015 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to commencement of the development, a habitat protection and enhancement scheme integrated with the landscape scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

            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 and NC7 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

22.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

2.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

3.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

4.         N11C General

 

5.         S106

 

6.         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.