Proposed erection of 4 no. Dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.

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

(Proposed erection of 4 no. dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Brown of Dilwyn Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms L Pledge a local resident spoke in objection.  Ms R Powell the applicant and Mr J Hicks the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         There was a need for development in Dilwyn.  However, the design was not in keeping with the conservation area.

·         He supported the grounds of objection raised by Dilwyn Parish Council.  Insufficient weight had been given to the Parish Council’s views and the significant number of letters of objection.

·         He expressed regret that a site visit had not been undertaken.

·         The Transport Manager had originally objected to the application stating that a proper assessment of the usage of the lane was required.  Following consideration of additional information, including a traffic assessment provided by the applicant, the Transport Manager had submitted a further response that did not object. The local ward member questioned whether the traffic assessment undertaken by the applicant had been adequate. He knew that there had been accidents on the access road even if these had not been officially recorded.  He also expressed concern about the use of a traffic assessment produced by residents in confidence.

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

·         The proposal was a modest development that would provide homes, with gardens, for young families.

·         There had been some suggestion that, contrary to paragraph 2.3 of the report, the Parish Council was developing a neighbourhood development plan.  The Development Manager confirmed that no plan had been registered with the neighbourhood development team.

·         There were insufficient grounds to support a refusal of the application.

·         Although the view was that highway safety was not a ground for refusal in this case, it would be important to ensure that the detailed conditions relating to highway safety were implemented.

·         Whilst it was clear that discussions had taken place leading to amendments to the original application it was unfortunate that there still appeared to be such local dissatisfaction with the proposal. It was to be hoped that there might still be room for some negotiation.  This possibly even merited deferral of the consideration of the application.

·         A Member sought clarification on the effect the absence of a 5 year housing land supply had on the application of housing related policies in the Core Strategy.  He also emphasised the importance of the Committee being given definitive advice on this matter and on the annual monitoring report. 

·         Clarification was also sought over a concern expressed by the local ward member and objectors about the use of a traffic assessment produced by residents.

The Development Manager commented that a Court of Appeal decision meant that in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply several policies in addition to those directly related to housing, such as locational policies, were rendered out of date.  However, environmental and qualitative policies still carried weight.  He added that the officer recommendation would have been for approval of the application had a 5 year housing land supply been in place.  The Scheme had already been considerably amended following discussions with the applicant.

The Development Manager also clarified the dispute that had arisen over the use of a traffic survey provided by local residents, referring members to the Transportation Manager’s conclusion that the development was not contrary to highway safety.

The Transportation Manager commented that the provision of a footpath from the development to the village had been explored but there had been found to be no benefit in pursuing such a proposal.  He added that he had no highway safety concerns about the scheme.  There had been no personal injury accidents recorded; visibility splays exceeded requirements; and the speed of traffic using the road was low in both directions.

The Chairman reiterated that a seminar on the 5 year housing land supply was being arranged.  He also explained that a request from the local ward member for a site visit had been received too late, Members of the Committee having already been advised that no visits would take place.

The Development Manager commented on the impact of the development on the conservation area and noted that the Conservation Manager had raised no objections to the amended scheme.  However, the weight to be given to the presumption in favour of housing development was significant.  He added that the scale of the development represented organic growth favoured by the Committee.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that accidents had taken place on the access road.  He remained of the view that insufficient regard had been had to the objections of the Parish Council and local residents.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    A01 (one year commencement)          

 

2.    B03 Amended plans

 

3.    C01 Samples of external materials

 

4.    D04 Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

 

5.    F08 No conversion of garages to habitable accommodation

 

6.    G02 Retention of existing trees/hedgerows

 

7.    G04 Pr.otection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

 

8.    G09 Details of boundary treatments

 

9.    G10 Landscaping scheme

 

10.  G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

11.  H03 Visibility splays

 

12.  H06 Vehicluar access construction

 

13.  H09 Driveway gradient

 

14.  H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

15.  H17 Junction improvement/off site works

 

16.  H20 Road completion in 2 years

 

17.  H27 Parking for site operatives

 

18.  H29 Covered and secure cycle parking provision

 

       The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from Star 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 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.

 

19.  CD3 Foul/surface water drainage

 

20.  CD5 No drainage runoff to public system

 

21.  I20 Scheme of surface drainage

 

22.  I21 Scheme of surface water regulation

 

23.  I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

24.  I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

       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 of the Hereford Local Plan – Core Strategy

 

25.  I32 Details of external lighting

 

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. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework

 

2.    HN01  Mud on highway

 

3.    HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

4.    HN05 Works within highway

 

5.    HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

6.    HN08 Section 38 Agreement & drainage details

 

7.    HN21 Extraordinary maintenance

 

8.    HN24 Drainage other than via highway system

 

9.    HN28 Highways design guide and specification

 

10.  N16 Welsh Water informative