Proposed outline consent (including details of access) for the erection of up to 38 dwellings.

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

(Proposed outline consent (including details of access) for the erection of up to 38 dwellings.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that the Committee had previously refused two applications for the same proposal.  The applicant, having lodged an appeal against the original refusal of the application, had now made a further resubmission of the same proposal.  Since the consideration of the original application the Council had adopted the Core Strategy and the resubmission of the application had to be considered in that new context.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Fountain, of Lea Parish Council spoke on the application.  He commented that the Parish Council did not support the application.  However, on the basis of officer advice that an appeal could not be successfully defended and the Council would incur costs, the Parish Council would reluctantly recommend approval subject to a number of conditions as set out in its response at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group, spoke in objection.  Mr M Askew, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Officers had advised him that the grounds advanced by the Committee for refusing the previous applications could not be defended at appeal.

·        The Parish Council reluctantly accepted the proposal, subject to conditions set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·        If the Parish Council’s requests were met this would help to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

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

·        The officer advice that the grounds for refusing the previous applications could not be defended at appeal was acknowledged.

·        There was support for the conditions advanced by the Parish Council.

·        It was regrettable that the Committee appeared to be unable to respond to the Parish Council’s clear reservations about the proposal and the concerns that it would represent overdevelopment.

·        Concern was expressed that the issue of ensuring financial support was in place for the ongoing maintenance of public open space in the case of this and other applications remained unresolved.

·        Tree planting as part of the landscaping proposals would be helpful in reducing flooding.

·        It would also be helpful if works provided for in an S106 agreement were undertaken prior to the completion of a development and its occupation.

·        This was another example of a situation where the wishes of the Parish Council were being overridden, in part because of the delay in advancing neighbourhood plans.  One year into the life of the Core Strategy the minimum housing allocations for a number of areas were already being exceeded.  The implication of this was that other areas would be able to accept less development than had been planned because the overall target for the Parish would have been met by overdevelopment elsewhere.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated the importance of the Parish Council’s conditions being met.  He also requested that consideration be given at the reserved matters stage to the provision of bungalows to meet local housing need.

The Development Manager commented that the S106 agreement would provide a number of benefits including highway improvements.  Surveys to address the flooding issues were being progressed and approval of the application would assist in ensuring that the necessary finance to support measures to address the flooding was secured.  The scheme would still provide six affordable dwellings.  The request that single storey dwellings be considered would be added to the grant of permission as an informative together with the Parish Council’s requirement for community consultation prior to the submission of reserved matters.

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.         C01 Samples of external materials

6.         The development shall include no more than 38 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.

7.         H03 Visibility splays

8.         H06 Vehicular access construction

9.         H09 Driveway gradient

10.       H11 Parking - estate development (more than one house)

11.       H17 Junction improvement/off site works

12.       H18 On site roads - submission of details

13.       H19 On site roads - phasing

14.       H20 Road completion in 2 years

15.       H21 Wheel washing

16.       H27 Parking for site operatives

17.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

18.       H30 Travel plans

19.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

20.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

21.       L04 Comprehensive & Integrated draining of site

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

23.       G10 Landscaping scheme

24.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

25.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

26.       No development shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a)         a 'desk study' report including previous site and adjacent site uses, potential contaminants arising from those uses, possible sources, pathways, and receptors, a conceptual model and a risk assessment in accordance with current best practice

b)         if the risk assessment in (a) confirms the possibility of a significant pollutant linkage(s), a site investigation should be undertaken to characterise fully the nature and extent and severity of contamination, incorporating a conceptual model of all the potential pollutant linkages and an assessment of risk to identified receptors

c)         if the risk assessment in (b) identifies unacceptable risk(s) a detailed scheme specifying remedial works and measures necessary to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The Remediation Scheme shall include consideration of and proposals to deal with situations where, during works on site, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified. Any further contamination encountered shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for written approval.

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

27.       The Remediation Scheme, as approved pursuant to condition no. (26) above, shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied. On completion of the remediation scheme the developer shall provide a validation report to confirm that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details, which must be submitted before the development is first occupied. Any variation to the scheme including the validation reporting shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken.

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

28.       If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority for, an amendment to the Method Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

            Reason: In the interests of human health and to ensure that the proposed development will not cause pollution to controlled waters or the wider environment.

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 38 Agreement & Drainage details

4.         HN07 Section 278 Agreement

5.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

6.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

7.         HN27 Annual travel Plan Reviews

8.         HN25 Travel Plans

9.         N11A Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) - Birds

10.       The assessment required by condition 26 of this permission is required to be undertaken in accordance with good practice guidance should be carried out by a suitably competent person as defined within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.  All investigations of potentially contaminated sites to undertake asbestos sampling and analysis as a matter of routine and this should be included with any submission.

11        Some of the development should be single storey. 

12        Community consultation should be undertaken prior to the submission of a reserved matters application.