Proposed residential development for 24 dwellings.

 

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

(Proposed residential development for 24 dwellings)

 

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.  She commented that it was proposed to amend the draft heads of terms appended to include reference to a traffic regulation order imposing a 30mph speed limit on part of the C1095 under the transport contributions.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs H Philpotts, Clerk to Burghill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs J Helme, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Owen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen spoke on the application on behalf of the local ward member.

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal.  It favoured a number of smaller developments in various locations around the village to retain the rural character of the area.

·        A questionnaire as part of the preparation of the village plan had found over 50% of residents were opposed to development in the proposed location.

·        There were concerns about the ability of the mains drainage and sewerage to cope with the new development. Garages at Baker’s furlong had been flooded by sewage.  Welsh Water needed to make improvements.

·        The site consisted of  impermeable clay and drainage was poor.

·        The access was close to the golf club and a dangerous cross roads.  Visibility was not good with dips in the road.  The current 40mph speed limit would have to be reduced if the development proceeded.

·        He questioned the sustainability of the development, noting that shops were some distance away and the car would therefore be the preferred means of travel. 

·        Space was needed between the development and the listed building and other nearby buildings. 

·        There were also questions over the retention of hedgerows and footpath provision.

·        The application was not as straightforward as it might appear at first sight.  Regard should be had to the concerns of the Parish Council and local residents.

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

 

·        The Parish Council’s preference for several developments of fewer houses would make it harder for Burghill to meet its housing target.

·        The site did have constraints including a listed building and the Welsh Water pipe crossing the site.  Maintaining the required access to pipe would restrict the developable area.

·        It was essential that the arrangements for the management and future maintenance of the proposed attenuation ponds were secured.

·        It was suggested that the first six informatives listed in the recommendation should be changed to conditions to make them binding.  The Development Manager commented that the informatives listed could not be translated into conditions.  However, conditions were already proposed covering many of these aspects.

·        There were too many uncertainties to enable the development to be supported.  In particular there was uncertainty over the management of surface water.

·        The site was a logical site for development.  The density of 16 dwellings per hectare was low.

·        A 30mph speed limit on the main road was essential.

·        The removal of the hedge would enable the provision of adequate visibility splays.

·        It was questioned whether the development would have an adverse effect on listed buildings nearby noting modern development was already present.  It was suggested that sensitive design of the new development might even represent an enhancement.

·        There was a need for 2 bed bungalows.

·        The development met a need for housing.

·        The housing officer had suggested a different mix of housing to that proposed.

·        Although the Neighbourhood Plan was not at an advanced stage consultation had been undertaken on the preferred location for and type of development and the local community was opposed to the proposal.

·        The proposed layout and tree planting proposals were good.

·        There was not stated intention to apply high design standards, with energy efficiency and water conservation measures.

·        The development included affordable housing which would enable young people to dwell in the village.

·        The proposal did not entail the loss of agricultural land.

·        There had been insufficient community engagement to date and it was to be hoped that this would improve if the proposal proceeded.

·        The response of the land drainage manager at page 76 of the report recommended that certain information was submitted prior to the Council granting outline planning permission.   It was asked if this had been supplied.

The Development Manager commented that 106 dwellings were required to meet the indicative housing target for Burghill.  This would mean some 10 sites would have to be identified to meet the Parish Council’s preference for smaller developments.  The site was in the heart of the village, of low density and provided 8 affordable houses.  The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings Officer) had commented that the development would not be detrimental to the setting of listed buildings nearby.  This was the type of site that the Committee would have to support if it wanted villages to grow and to retain local people within them.  In relation to drainage before any development commenced proposals would have to have been approved by the local planning authority and other relevant statutory bodies.  He acknowledged that the authority had not received the information as recommended by the land drainage matter.  However, that would form a fundamental part of consideration of drainage proposals at the reserved matters stage.  The development provided benefits including improvements to the road network, footpaths to the local recreation area, and path to the school.  A reduced speed limit would also be imposed.  The site was sustainable.  He proposed that officers be authorised to amend the S106 agreement after consultation with the local ward member having particular regard to the maintenance of drainage measures.

 

Councillor Bowen was given the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the local ward member.  He reiterated his request that the Committee took account of the Parish Council’s concerns.   The development must be sustainable and drainage and access problems had to be overcome.

 

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 unless otherwise amended in respect of surface water drainage maintenance, off-site play and transportation contribution, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary

 

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.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

6.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

7.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

8.         H09 Driveway gradient

 

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

10.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

11.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

12.       G03 Retention of existing trees/hedgerows

 

13.       G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

14.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

15.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

16.       I51 Details of slab levels

 

17.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

 

18.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

19.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

20.       L04 Comprehensive & Integratred draining of site

 

21.       H17 Junction improvement / off site works

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

 

            Drainage arrangements shall be provided to ensure that surface water from the driveway and/or vehicular turning area does not discharge onto the public highway.  No drainage or effluent from the proposed development shall be allowed to discharge into any highway drain or over any part of the public highway.

 

2.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

3.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

4.         HN13 Protection of visibility splays on private land

 

5.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

6.         The developer is advised that the proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record.  Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times.  No part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. 

 

7.         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.