Proposed erection of nine dwellings.

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, Mrs E Morawiecka of Breinton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Jolly, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

Councillor WLS Bowen had fulfilled the role of local ward member for this application on behalf of Councillor RI Matthews.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Bowen spoke on the application.

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        He noted that it had been advised that the route corridor for the western relief road did not impact upon the site and that it was not therefore a relevant matter.

·        The site had once been an old orchard and if the application were approved he supported the maintenance of an area as traditional orchard.

·        The access from the Kings Acre Road was good, but the road from the access to the site needed to be adopted.

·        The site had good access to transport links and was sustainable.

·        The Parish Council considered that the parish needed smaller housing units than the application proposed. 

·        The development would have no affordable housing.

·        The quality of design would be important.

·        The turning head of the access road should be reduced in size.

·        It was important that sewerage and water supply issues were addressed.

·        The S106 agreement would need to incorporate provision for transport, public open space and a play area.

·        He requested that the Parish Council should be fully consulted on any reserved matters application.

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

 

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had suggested that a condition should be imposed requiring a compensatory commitment to re-establish areas of lost trees and manage an area in association with the development as traditional orchard.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed where it was proposed that area should be.  She noted that there had been no trees on the development site since 1999.  It was proposed to address the points made by the Conservation Manager (Ecology) about enhancing the area through the S106 agreement.

·        The concept of the traditional orchard was questioned.  Such orchards were not long lived, were not commercially viable and could only be maintained as a community project.

·        The proposal was sustainable.

·        The provision of private garden space was welcome.

·        The absence of any affordable housing as part of the development was regrettable.

·        The development could not be considered to be in open countryside.  It was in the middle of an area that had already been developed and could be viewed as organic growth.

·        In considering the size of the turning head of the access road, it was important to ensure that regard was had to recycling and waste management collection requirements.

·        Local demand showed a need for affordable housing and smaller housing units than was proposed.

·        The stated density was 15.5 dwellings per hectare.  However, 9 houses on 40% of the site was in fact a high density development.

·        A Member commented that all the issues raised in the debate were addressed in the Breinton Neighbourhood Plan.  The completion of the Plan had been delayed by failings on the part of the Council.  The Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), the accuracy of which officers were now questioning, had stated that the site had been rejected due to inadequate access on the advice of the Council. The HELAA also stated that the site was within the preferred corridor for the western relief road.  Another application in the preferred corridor for the western relief road had been rejected.  The Breinton Neighbourhood Plan would achieve Regulation 16 status early in the New Year.  The application should be deferred on the grounds of prematurity.

·        The Development Manager commented that the Neighbourhood Plan was a material consideration but could not be given weight at this stage.  If the application were to be deferred the applicant would have a right of appeal for non-determination.

A motion that the application be deferred was lost.

 

Councillor Bowen, acting on behalf of the local ward member, was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that, if approved, it was to be hoped that smaller housing units would be built and a community orchard established.  He reiterated the need for full consultation on reserved matters with the Parish Council, local ward Member and the Chairman of the Committee.

 

The Development Manager commented that the Neighbourhood Plan would be material in processing a reserved matters application and full weight could be given to it.  The local ward member and the parish council would be consulted on a reserved matters application. However, it was only if there was dispute that the reserved matters application would be referred to the Committee for determination.  The provision of an orchard was covered by condition.   The site was clearly outside the western relief road corridor.  The former Unitary Development Plan designation of the site as open countryside was no longer material.

 

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 outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary after consultation with the local ward member, the Parish Council and the Chairman.:

 

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.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

8.         H09 Driveway gradient

 

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

10.       H18 On site roads - submission of details

 

11.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

12.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

13.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

14.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from Focus ecology dated May 2015 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to commencement of the development, a habitat enhancement scheme integrated with the landscape scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall incorporate the allocation of a compensatory area of mixed orchard planting commensurate with the composition of the original site trees and the scheme be implemented as approved and managed as a standard tree orchard in perpetuity.

 

            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 Policy LD2 of the HErefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the NPPF and the NERC Act 2006.

 

15.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

16.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

17.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

18.       Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme demonstrating measures for the efficient use of water as per the optional technical standards contained within Policy SD3 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure compliance with Policies SD3 and SD4 of the Hereford Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

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.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

3.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

4.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification