Proposed 5 no. Dwellings with garages and treatment plant.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with additional conditions and an authorisation to resolve some specific matters.

 

(Proposed 5 no dwellings with garages and treatment plant.)

The Development Manager as the case 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.

He added that he had received an e-mail on Tuesday from the Parish Council regarding slab levels and the height of the proposed dwellings but this had not stated how the data had been collected. In addition he confirmed that the application considered by the Committee in April 2017 had been withdrawn and the Committee had to consider the application before it afresh as a new application. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr I Goddard of Aymestrey Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Johnston, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would jeopardise a much needed traffic calming scheme and its effectiveness.

·        The church and its tower was the primary landmark in Aymestrey.  The report stated at paragraph 1.3 that levels were proposed to ensure that the ridge line of the new dwellings did not project above the height of the village hall ridgeline.  However, she questioned whether the applicant’s measurement of the levels was correct.  Three sets of measurements had been carried out by various parties in the past three days with different results.  She requested a deferral to enable the facts to be established.

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

·        It was proposed that the application should be approved but with a delegated authority to officers to agree matters relating to roof levels, the positioning of the hedgerow to accommodate the access and the location of the parish gateway, after consultation with the chairman and local ward member.

·        It was observed that Historic England considered the proposal to create “less than substantial harm” as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The setting of Aymestrey church had not to date been harmed in the way that the setting of many other churches had been and should be preserved.

·        The phrase “less than substantial harm” in the NPPF was unfortunate because it implied less detriment than was in fact the case.  The proposal did involve harm to a grade 1 listed building.  Paragraph 132 of the NPPF stated that great weight should be given to the conservation of such buildings and their setting.  The harm should be weighed against the public benefits.  

·        The character of the setting was more linear than the proposal.

·        The relative height of the dwellings to the village hall and the tower was crucial to ensure that the tower remained the dominant feature.

·        A view was expressed that the development would not have an adverse impact on the setting.

·        Some members indicated that they considered that the application should be refused.

·        A member expressed concern about road safety and suggested that the 30mph speed limit should be extended to the south.

·        Attention was drawn to the comments of the Transportation Manager at paragraph 6.14 of the report that a safe access arrangement was available.

·        Clarification was sought on timescales for the development and whether there had been an archaeological assessment.

·        Clarification was provided on the landscaping and the extent of hedgerow that would need to be removed.

The Development Manager commented that officers’ view was that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the less than substantial harm that Historic England considered it would cause. The Committee could have a different opinion on the planning balance.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Transportation Manager had indicated that an extension of the 30mph speed limit would not be beneficial.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her concern about the varying measurements of the height of the development and the depth of any excavations that might be required to ensure the height did not exceed the village hall ridgeline and again requested that consideration of the application should be deferred until this was resolved.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Greenow seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation with additional conditions as set out in the update sheet and with a delegated authority to officers to agree matters relating to roof levels, the positioning of the hedgerow to accommodate the access and the location of the parish gateway after consultation with the chairman and local ward member.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, 6 against and no abstentions.)

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and with officers named in the scheme of delegation to officer authorised to agree matters relating to roof levels, the positioning of the hedgerow to accommodate the access and the location of the parish gateway after consultation with the chairman and local ward member.

 

1.         A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

 

2.         B01 - Development in accordance with the approved plans (1447/1C, 1447/2-8, 1447/10

 

3          C01 - Samples of external materials

 

4.         Recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report from Protected Species dated October 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 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.

 

            Reasons:

            To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and 2012 amendment).

 

            To comply with Herefordshire Council’s Policies LD2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity, LD3 Green Infrastructure of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 – 2031 and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

5          G10 - Landscaping scheme

 

6          G11 - Landscaping scheme – implementation

 

7          I51 - Details of slab levels - ridge heights not to exceed that of village hall

 

8          H03 - Visibility splays 2.4m x distance, 160m to the south.

           

9          H06 - Vehicular access construction

 

10        H09 - Driveway gradient

 

11        H13 - Access, turning area and parking - garage pd rights to be removed.

 

12        H17 - Junction improvement/off site works.  S278 works to include revised scheme to accommodate the visibility splays and to incorporate the new verge, pedestrian crossing and relaying the 30mph roundels and any Gateway Features affected by the scheme and change to hedgerow / visibility splays.

 

13        H20 - Road completion in 2 years

 

14        H21 - Wheel washing

 

15        H27 - Parking for site operatives

 

16        H29 - Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

17.       CAC (H04) visibility over site frontage 2.4m to the northern boundary

 

18.       CAM (H14) turning, parking, domestic

 

19.       CBB (I07) hours restriction operation of plant /machinery/ equipment condition 8am- 6pm mon – Friday 8-12noon sat, no time Sunday or bank holidays and any other conditions deemed necessary

 

 

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          HN07 Section 278 Agreement

 

4          HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

5          HN01 Mud on highway

 

6          HN28 Highways Design Guide and Specification