Proposed demolition of existing agricultural buildings and replacement with six dwellings with associated work space.  Conversion of existing workshop to form single dwelling and associated works. 

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

(Proposed demolition of existing agricultural buildings and replacement with six dwellings with associated work space.  Conversion of existing workshop to form single dwelling and associated works.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Mason, of Vowchurch and Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr H Lewis, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He commented that there was a consensus that work needed to be done to the site. However, Vowchurch and Group Parish Council had highlighted the key concerns about this particular application in its representations set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  Preparing a neighbourhood development plan (NDP) involved considerable time and effort.  A plan had been produced that was consistent with the core strategy.  The plan had been made and could be afforded full weight in determining the application. The application was contrary to the NDP and approving the application would send a message across the county that NDPs had no value.  He questioned whether the addition of 7 dwellings to a settlement of 8 dwellings was proportionate and in keeping with it.

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

·        The interrelationship between the core strategy and neighbourhood development plans required further consideration as part of the forthcoming review of the Core Strategy.

It was requested that, as a general practice, points made by the Committee on the operation of the new Core Strategy during its consideration of the various applications before it were taken into account at any review of the core strategy.

·        It was regrettable that the applicant did not appear to have discussed the development proposals with the local community.

·        It would be costly to develop the site and it was questionable whether it would be viable to develop it if fewer dwellings were permitted, unless these were particularly large properties.

·        The council still had a housing shortfall.

·        Live-work units would be suited to the site.  The design illustrations included in the officer presentation were welcomed.  It would, however, be important for the council and the developer to ensure that these designs were implemented as presented.

·        The NDP said that proposals should “broadly be for no more than 1 to 3 homes on each site”.  This did not preclude a larger development.

·        Weight should be given to the fact that the proposal would result in considerable betterment to the site. 

·        The development was acceptable in principle under both the core strategy and the NDP.

·        The proposed design reflected the local character.

·        The development contained a good housing mix and offered a degree of affordability.

·        The Parish Council and the local ward member had put forward sound reasons why the application should not be approved.  The Committee should respect the neighbourhood development plan.

·        It was questioned whether the development was appropriate to the settlement pattern in the Parish area.  The number of units proposed was too great.

·        An assumption was being made that occupants of the dwellings would engage in home working and that wifi provision would be robust enough to support this lifestyle.  If this assumption was incorrect this could mean more traffic movements were generated which could create problems on the rural road network.

·        There were several grounds for refusing the application in that it was not in the right place and was contrary to policy.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the operation of the live-work units was controlled by condition 23 as set out in the report.

The Lead Development Manager commented as follows:

·        No land was allocated for settlement in the NDP.  Account therefore had to be taken of the council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply.

·        He noted that the examiner’s report on the NDP had not yet been received.

·        The NDP said that proposals should “broadly be for no more than 1 to 3 homes on each site”.  The benefits of the scheme had to be weighed in the planning balance alongside this policy.  These included: the provision of live-work units and a good housing mix.  If the application were refused the applicant could propose a scheme for 3 large dwellings that could not be resisted under the NDP.  The provision of smaller housing units was a benefit.  It was for the Committee to decide whether the development was of a farmstead typology as considered by officers, or an urban type cul-de-sac as the parish council described it.  The scheme was relatively small and could be considered organic growth.

In response to a question as to whether the possibility that the developers might submit an application for 3 large houses was a material consideration the LDM commented that the applicants themselves had not advanced viability as part of their application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the scale of the development could not be considered to be in keeping with the wording in the NDP and this raised a question over the validity and worth of NDPs across the county.  The site needed to be developed but any development should be proportionate.  The applicant had not advanced economic viability as a reason for the size of the development proposed.  If approved it would be important to ensure that the design shown to the committee was implemented.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Swinglehurst seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.)

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

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

 

4.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

 

5.         G10 Landscaping scheme

 

6.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

7.         H06 Vehicular access construction

 

8.         H09 Driveway gradient

 

9.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

 

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

 

11.       H21 Wheel washing

 

12.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

13.       H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

14.       I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

 

15.       I32 Details of floodlighting/external lighting

 

16.       I42 Scheme of refuse storage (residential)

 

17.       K5 Habitat Enhancement Scheme

 

18.       M09 Universal cond for development on land affected by contamination

 

19.       M17 Water Efficiency - Residential

 

20.       The ecological protection, mitigation and working methods scheme as recommended in the Ecological Report by Ecology Services  dated July 2017 shall be implemented in full as stated and a relevant European Protected Species Licence obtained prior to any work commencing on site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, NERC 2006.

 

21        In addition to any required bat roosting enhancements and agreed soft landscaping, prior to commencement of the development, a detailed habitat enhancement scheme should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework, NERC 2006.

 

22.       The work space within the live-work units hereby approved (Units A, B, C, D, E and F on the approved site layout drawing 2472 P(0) 01 shall be used solely for purposes falling within Class B1 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

 

            Reason:  To control the use of the workspace areas in order to ensure that they remain compatible with the adjoining residential properties so as to comply with policies SD1 and RA6 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, 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.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

3.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

4.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

5.         HN08 Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

6.         HN24 Drainage other than via highway system

 

7.         HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

8.         The enhancement plan should include details and locations of any proposed Biodiversity/Habitat enhancements as referred to in NPPF and HC Core Strategy. At a minimum we would be looking for proposals to enhance bird nesting and invertebrate/pollinator homes to be incorporated in to the new buildings as well as consideration for amphibian/reptile refugia and hedgehog houses within the landscaping/boundary features. No external lighting should illuminate any of the enhancements or boundary features beyond any existing illumination levels and all lighting on the development should support the Dark Skies initiative.