Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of 28 nos dwelling houses with details of access and all other matters reserved.

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

(Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of 28 nos dwelling houses with details of access and all other matter reserved.)

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Bungey, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr P Harris, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

 

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

 

He made the following principal comments:

 

·        The development would be to the detriment of existing properties especially three dwellings to the south of the site.  He drew attention to the height differential between Crossfield House and part of the development site.  As an outline application it was to be hoped that if it were to be approved the protection of the amenity of existing properties could be considered at the reserved matters stage.

 

·        The applicants were a local family providing development land for the benefit of the village.

 

·        There had been two public consultation exercises.  Whilst most people seemed willing to accept some development there was some disappointment over the scale of development proposed. It was feared that it would dominate existing properties and the character of the settlement.  However, he acknowledged that economies of scale played their part in considering the size of a development.  The scheme would provide 10 affordable housing units which would be of benefit.

 

·        A key question was what constituted proportionate development.  The proposal would provide in one development more than the minimum growth the Core Strategy envisaged for Stoke Lacy in the life of the Strategy.  There was merit in considering the possibility of organic growth on a number of locations in Stoke Lacy.

 

·        It was disappointing that the S106 agreement did not propose any contribution to the local high school.

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

 

·        Traffic speed on the A465 was a concern.  Calming measures had to date proved ineffective.

 

·        The possibility of phasing development was discussed.  It was noted that in economic terms this was unlikely to be viable for a small development and phasing also entailed an extended period of disruption from construction works.

 

·        Welsh Water had originally objected to the proposal.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that this initial objection had been withdrawn following Welsh Water’s discussion with the applicants.  Welsh Water’s response as a statutory consultee was that it had no objection.  There was also no professional objection to the proposed drainage strategy.

 

·        The Parish Council had expressed concerns about the scale of development, the impact on the amenity of existing residents and highway safety.

 

·        The development represented overdevelopment of the village. 

 

·        Whilst the development might appear large for Stoke Lacy, it was difficult to argue that the development represented disproportionate growth for the Parish as a whole and that was what the policies in the Core Strategy were based on.

 

·        Any development should be of a good quality and energy efficient.

 

·        The provision of single storey dwellings in the relevant part of the development would preserve the amenity of existing properties and this should be required.

The Development Manager commented that an informative could be added encouraging the provision of single storey dwellings in the relevant part of the site.  The density of the development was relatively low at 18 dwellings per hectare.  The Core Strategy envisaged 24 dwellings for the Parish over the life of the Strategy rather than the 28 proposed.  However, it did represent proportionate growth.  There were no other planning applications outstanding and each application had to be considered on its merits.  There was provision in the S106 agreement for traffic calming and traffic management measures such as a gateway feature for the village to help reduce the speed of traffic.  The development would provide affordable housing and was supported by the Parish Council in principle.  The High School was not eligible for S106 funding because there was capacity at the school.

 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that although a S106 contribution to the High School may not be required this did not mean that one could not be requested.  The provision of single storey dwellings in part of the development was a good proposal.

 

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:

 

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 approved plans

 

5.         The development shall include no more than 28 dwellings and no dwelling shall be more than two storeys high.

 

            Reason: To define the terms of the permission and to conform to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, H13 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.         H02 Single access – footway

 

7.         H03 Visibility splays

 

8.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

9.         H11 Parking – estate development (more than one house)

 

10.       H18 On site roads – submission of details

 

11.       I13 Scheme to protect new dwellings from road noise

 

12.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from fpcr  dated June 2015 should be followed.  Prior to commencement of the development a working method statement for bat species mitigation and a habitat management /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.

 

            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. 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

 

13.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

 

14.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

 

15.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

 

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, 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.

 

2.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

 

3.         HN08 Section 38Agreement & Drainage details

 

4.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

5.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

6.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

7.         HN24 Drainage other than via highway system

 

8.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

9.         HN28 Highway Design Guide and Specification

 

10        That consideration be given within the Reserved Matters application to single storey development where the site adjoins existing dwellings.