Proposed residential development of up to 21 dwellings along with new access and associated works.

 

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 21 dwellings along with new access and associated works.)

 

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 W Mears of Kimbolton Parish Council commented that whilst the Parish Council had no objection in principle it did have a number of concerns about the Scheme.  Mr J Robinson, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs S Churchward, the applicant, spoke in support.

 

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

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        The community consultation referred to at paragraph 1.5 of the report had been organised by the applicants not the Parish Council.  It had been well attended.

·        In the context of Kimbolton the development was large and potentially significant.

·        The Neighbourhood Plan was at an early stage so residents, who were not opposed in principle to development, had not yet had the opportunity to express their views on possible development sites.

The following points were in favour of the development:

·        The proposal for up to 21 houses, 40% of which would be affordable, would provide an opportunity for young people and families to live in the village and contribute to the village’s sustainability.

·        The Primary School was good and the head teacher welcomed the development.

·        The development was of a low density.

Less welcome aspects included:

·        Whilst the Parish Council was not opposed in principle to development it had outlined a number of concerns in its response at page 31 of the agenda papers.  These included sewage management; there was already a pollution problem in the absence of a public sewer.

·        The comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) who had registered an objection included the statement that: “The proposed site extends in a north-westerly direction beyond the existing north western housing boundaries.  This creates housing creep into the open countryside which makes the proposed site out of scale with the existing village pattern.”  The Conservation Manager went on to suggest that a development of 11 houses would be more acceptable.

·        There were concerns about the access to the site and the additional traffic.  Whilst there was a 30mph speed limit on that part of the A4112 the road was busy and traffic fast at certain times of the day.  Traffic calming measures were needed.

·        Kimbolton Primary School needed its own hall so pupils did not have to walk to the village hall.

·        Footpath and cycleway provision needed to be improved.

·        The section 106 agreement needed to be revisited.

In conclusion he observed that paragraph 6.29 of the report concluded that the adverse impacts did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the Scheme.  It was a finely balanced application.

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

 

·        It was welcome that the density was relatively low.  The scheme provided gardens for the houses.

·        The road was a through route to Tenbury and very busy at times.  The access was satisfactory within the 30mph speed limit but signing should be improved.  A speed indicator device should also be considered.

·        The site was in the middle of the village with a public house and shop nearby.

·        The site did slope up from the road.  It was to be hoped that at the reserved matters stage consideration could be given to ensuring that the development did not loom over the village.

·        A concern was expressed that the development extended beyond the natural line of the village and would have an adverse impact.

·        Any development should be far enough away from the edge of the bank to avoid damaging it.

·        There was the potential for water run-off from the site.  Consideration should be given to a wet system of drainage using trees.

·        Quality of design and low energy housing was to be encouraged.

·        The provision of 40% affordable housing was welcome.

·        It was regrettable that Grade 2 agricultural land was to be used if brownfield land was available.

·        Mitigation to address the concerns of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) about the impact on the landscape appeared possible, for example with more planting and provision of open space, and would be welcome.

·        Given concerns expressed about drainage it was asked whether some of the informatives relating to this aspect could be made conditions.  The Development Manager commented that conditions 14-16 addressed these points and the informatives related to those conditions.

·        If there would not be enough funding under the S106 agreement for a school hall consideration should be given to improving the pavement to the village hall.

The Development Manager commented that the application was for a development of up to 21 houses.  If the Committee wanted there to be a smaller development on the site it would have to refuse the current application.

 

He added:

 

·        It was recognised that a requirement for recycling provision would need to be added into the draft heads of terms.

·        The draft section 106 agreement was Community infrastructure levy compliant and no further contribution could be required.

·        The provision of gateway features could address concerns about the access and be funded from the proposed S106 transport contribution.  Funding to support safer routes to schools requirements could also be considered.

·        Drainage would be considered at the reserved matters stage.  Soft landscaping could assist with drainage.

·        The development was sufficiently distant from the Stockton Cross Inn, a listed building, not to have an impact.

·        If the application were refused the applicant could submit an application for up to 10 houses and offer no affordable housing.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the development did have a lot of advantages.  It was on the same side of the village as an existing estate and the access was better than for a number of alternative sites.  It was important that drainage concerns were addressed because Kimbolton had suffered from flooding. The Parish Council had asked to be consulted on the S106 agreement.  The Parish Council was not opposed in principle to the development so long as it was of benefit to the village.   The provision of affordable housing was important to the village’s long term sustainability.

 

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 and appended, 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.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

5.         G03 Retention of existing trees/hedgerows

 

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

 

7.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

 

8.         G10 Landscaping scheme

 

9.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

10.       H13 (Access, turning and parking)

 

11.       H27 (Parking for site operatives)

 

12.       E01 Site investigation - archaeology

 

13.       The recommendations set out in Section 5 of the ecologist’s report from Churton Ecology dated March 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.

 

            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 SS6, LD2 and LD3 of Herefordshire Local Plan –Core Strategy

 

            To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Policy LD2 and LD3 in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the NPPF and the NERC Act 2006

 

14.       I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

 

15.       I21 Scheme of surface water regulation

 

16.       I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

17.       Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential development hereby permitted written evidence / certification demonstrating that water conservation and efficiency measures to achieve the ‘Housing – Optional Technical Standards – Water efficiency standards’ (i.e. currently a maximum of 110 litres per person per day) for water consumption as a minimum have been installed / implemented shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval. The development shall not be first occupied until the Local Planning Authority have confirmed in writing receipt of the aforementioned evidence and their satisfaction with the submitted documentation. Thereafter those water conservation and efficiency measures shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development;

 

            Reason: - To ensure water conservation and efficiency measures are secured, in accordance with policy SD3 (6) of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031          

 

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. 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.         The following information should be provided in connection with Conditions 14, 15 and 16 above:

 

Soil infiltration rates to confirm whether the infiltration techniques are feasible for both surface water and foul water discharges;

 

Groundwater levels if infiltration techniques are found to be feasible on site, as the bottom of a soakaway should be located a minimum of 1m above the recorded groundwater levels;

 

Detailed surface water drainage design including SUDS source control measures wherever feasible and drainage calculations. The Applicant must provide evidence that the proposed drainage system will not increase risk of flooding to people and properties within and outside of the site for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event with 30% climate change allowance. The Applicant must also provide information on exceedance routes to ensure no increased flood risk to people and properties elsewhere;

 

• Detailed foul water drainage design;

 

• Confirmation of who will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed package treatment plant and common attenuation storage;

 

• Confirmation from DCWW that they have agreed to the adoption and maintenance of the surface water drainage system

 

As discussed above, the Applicant will also need to obtain approval of the Council regarding the proposed combined sewer located within the public highway and ordinary watercourse consent for the new outfall to the watercourse south of the site.