Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.

The Committee approved the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation with additional conditions.

(Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.)

(Councillor Bolderson had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred at the previous meeting, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Park, a local resident, had been registered to speak in objection.  However, as she had been unable to attend the meeting a statement she had submitted was read out on her behalf.   Mrs S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The main issue was weighing the value attached to the retention of the railway arch against the benefits of the development. 

·        He had explored whether the arch could be retained as a feature of the development.  The expert advice contained in the report indicated no real support for retention of the arch and the report concluded that the proposal resulted in less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

·        The Fire Authority’s response set out at paragraph 5.5 of the report indicated that demolition of the arch was required to provide an acceptable access.  The risk to safety otherwise was unacceptable.

·        Whilst the expert view was that the arch did not have architectural and historic merit it was a landmark and did have a social value locally.   Most of the objections to the development related to the arch demonstrating the value attached to it.  However, this had to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme.

·        The development would provide 13 affordable houses. There would be a financial contribution from the developer.  The Charity owning the site, whose purpose was to provide affordable rental property, would receive funds which it could use in support of this aim to the Town’s wider benefit.

·        In relation to the developer contribution to Wye Valley NHS Trust he requested that this should be allocated to Ross-on-Wye, and in particular to support the Minor Injuries Unit.

·        The report’s conclusion was that the benefits of the development outweighed the social value associated with retention of the arch.  He sought the Committee’s view.

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

·        A Member reported that he had received a comment from the Director of the Victorian Society (the statutory amenity body advising on matters of planning affecting heritage assets for the Victorian period) to which weight should be attached accordingly.  This stated that: “The Cawdor Arch is physical evidence of an important - but increasingly invisible - part of Ross-on-Wye's nineteenth century history.  It is also, whilst not uncommon in a national context, a structure of quality, built of rock-faced ashlar and of a pleasing arched form that, with its echoes of triumphal arches and Roman aqueducts, shows the noble scale and ambition of Victorian engineering.  It would be impossibly expensive to build such a structure today - once it is gone it is gone forever. Cawdor Arch is clearly of local interest, and I hope that the planning committee will give careful thought to the arguments for retaining it, and the alternatives to demolition.” 

·        The original development of the area of 40 dwellings approved in 1992 had not required demolition of the arch.  The next application in 2013 had proposed the arch’s demolition. The arch had been recognised as a heritage asset. It was the only surviving railway arch in Ross-on-Wye.

·        There had been 30 representations with 20 objections.

·        Ross Civic Society had recommended access to the site from the north in order to preserve the arch.

·        The Planning Officer’s report on the 2013 application had recommended refusal considering that it would represent significant harm with no clear public benefit and without it being necessary to secure optimum use of the land.

·        A scheme submitted in 2017 had been withdrawn following objection from Historic England to the design of the houses.

·        Weight should be given to the representations in support of the arch’s retention.

·        In balancing the benefit of retaining the arch against the development regard should be had to the financial benefit to the Charity that would enable it to provide additional affordable accommodation within the Town.

·        The PPO confirmed that conditions could be added requiring the reuse of materials and recording of the arch as an historic building.

·        In relation to a question about measures to reduce energy usage the Lead Development Manage confirmed that the applicant would be taking a fabric first approach designed to increase energy performance in new homes.  In addition the development consisted of terraced housing providing further benefit in this regard. Policies to address climate change were currently limited.  However, climate change issues were being discussed with developers.  The method of construction of dwellings was, however, dealt with under building regulations and was not a planning matter.

·        Condition 21 required cycle parking provision.

·        The application before the committee did not propose access from the North.  The land to the north an access would need to cross was not in the applicant’s ownership, there was a power sub-station on the line of an access in that direction and there were issues relating to different land levels.

·        It was suggested that the Fire Service had a range of equipment available to it and questioned whether standard size fire engine needed to be deployed. The Lead Development Manager commented that he understood that the Fire Service’s response took account of the views of the local fire station.

 

·        Clarification was provided on the definition of affordable housing and the application of relevant policies within the County.  He also referred to paragraph 6.66 of the report which explained how the affordable housing units would be allocated.

The Lead Development Manager commented that in the planning balance the loss of the arch had to be weighed against the Scheme’s benefits in terms of affordable housing and Section 106 contributions.  Regarding the loss of the arch he acknowledged the comments of the Victorian Society but observed that Historic England considered any harm to be less than substantial.  Officers had recommended the Scheme for approval.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. Whilst not wanting to lose either the arch or the development Ross Town Council had supported the Scheme as on balance did he.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any further conditions or amendments to conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers.

 

1.         Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

 

2.         Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

 

3.         Before any work begins, equipment or materials moved on to site, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be supplied to the planning authority for written approval.  The approved CEMP shall be implemented and remain in place until all work is complete on site and all equipment and spare materials have been finally removed.

 

            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 2017 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and NERC Act 2006

 

4.         The Reptile Translocation Plan as recommended by Wessex Ecological Consultancy dated May 2017 shall be implemented in full as stated unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. Offsite Receptor sites must be subject to appropriate legal agreements and Management Plans such as to ensure the in perpetuity security of tenure and habitat quality of the receptor site. The final legal agreement and site management plan shall be approved by this 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

 

5.         The following information and details shall be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement of development of the development hereby permitted including any groundworks or site clearance –

 

•           Assessment of risks to safe access and egress associated with fluvial flooding (with climate change allowances) and demonstration of appropriate provision of safe access and egress;

•           Results of infiltration testing at the location(s) and proposed depth(s) of any proposed infiltration structure(s), undertaken in accordance with BRE Digest 365 methodology. If the infiltration results are found to not be suitable, an alternative drainage strategy will need to be submitted to the Council;

•           Confirmation of groundwater levels to demonstrate that the invert level of any soakaways or unlined attenuation features can be located a minimum of 1m above groundwater levels;

•           Detailed drawings that demonstrate the inclusion of SuDS, where appropriate, and location and size of key drainage features;

•           Drawings showing details of the proposed attenuation ponds and swales, including cross sections;

•           Detailed calculations of proposed infiltration features informed by the results of infiltration testing;

•           All drainage calculations, including attenuation storage calculations, should be based on the FEH 2013 rainfall data;

•           Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed surface water drainage system has been designed to prevent the surcharging of any below ground drainage network elements in all events up to an including the 1 in 2 annual probability storm event;

•           Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed surface water management system will prevent any flooding of the site in all events up to an including the 1 in 30 annual probability storm event;

•           Calculations that demonstrates there will be no increased risk of flooding as a result of development up to the 1 in 100 year event and allowing for the potential effects of climate change;

•           Details of how natural overland flow paths and overland flows from outside of the site boundary have influenced the development layout and design of the drainage system;

•           Detailed drawing demonstrating the management of surface water runoff during events that may exceed the capacity of the drainage system, including: temporary exceedance of inlet features such as gullies; exceedance flow routes and storage up to the 1 in 100 year event; and exceedance in the event of blockage including blockage of attenuation pond outlets;

•           Operation and Maintenance Manual for all drainage features to be maintained by a third party management company;

•           Detailed drawings of the foul water drainage strategy showing how foul water from the development will be disposed of and illustrating the location of key drainage features.

 

            The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and all drainage works shall be installed and ready and available for use prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter be maintained as such.

 

            Reason: to ensure adequate drainage provision is made, to avoid adverse impact upon adjoining land, buildings and uses and in the interests of public health and safety and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies RW1, SD3 and SD4.

 

6.         No development shall commence until a drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall provide for the disposal of foul, surface and land water, and include an assessment of the potential to dispose of surface and land water by sustainable means. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development and no further foul water, surface water and land drainage shall be allowed to connect directly or indirectly with the public sewerage system.

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no pollution of or detriment to the environment.

 

7.         CAT – Wheel washing

 

8.         In addition to required ecological mitigation and soft landscaping, prior to commencement of the development, a detailed habitat enhancement scheme including extensive provisions for bat roosting, bird nesting, pollinating insect houses, hedgehog homes and reptile-amphibian refugia should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be hereafter implemented and maintained as approved. No external lighting should illuminate any biodiversity enhancement, or ecological habitat.

 

            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

 

9.         C96 – Landscaping

 

10.       CA6 – Details of play equipment

 

11.       CAB – Visibility

 

12.       CAE – Access construction

 

13.       CAP – Junction improvements and off site works

 

14.       C97 – Landscape scheme implementation

 

15.       CA1 – Landscape Management Plan

 

16.       CA5 – Provision of play equipment

 

17.       CAH – Driveway gradient

 

18.       CAJ – Parking estate development

 

19.       CAL – Access, parking and turning

 

20.       CAR – On site road phasing

 

21.       CB2 – Secure covered cycle parking provision

 

22.       The ecological protection, mitigation and working methods scheme as recommended in the Ecological Report by HEC August 2015 shall be implemented in full as stated 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 2017 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and NERC Act 2006

 

 

23.       No buildings on the application site shall be brought into beneficial use earlier than 31/03/2020, unless the upgrading of the Waste Water Treatment Works, into which the development shall drain, has been completed and written confirmation of this has been issued by the Local Planning Authority".

 

            Reason: To prevent overloading of the Waste Water Treatment Works and pollution of the environment.

 

24.       Notwithstanding the provisions of article 3(1) and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015,(or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development which would otherwise be permitted under Classes A, B, C, D, E and H of Part 1 and of Schedule 2, shall be carried out.

 

            Reason: In order to protect the character and amenity of the Wye Valley AONB and wider locality, maintain and enhance the character and appearance f the conservation area,  to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy SS1, RW1, LD1, LD4 and  SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, Wye Valley AONB Management Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

25.       CA3 – Landscape Monitoring

 

26.       CAQ – On site roads - submission of details

 

27.       CAX – Direction of proposed lighting

 

28.       CB1 – Public rights of way

 

29.       CBK – Restriction of hours during construction

 

30.       No demolition of Cawdor Arch until contract for construction signed or other alternative stage reached

 

31.       D24 -. Recording of Arch

 

32        Reuse of arch materials on site

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         Pro active Reason 2

 

2.         I11 – Mud on highway

 

3.         I09 – Private apparatus within highway 

 

4.         I06 – Public rights of way affected

 

5.         I45 – Works within the highway

 

6.         I08 – Section 278 Agreement

 

7.         I07 – Section 38 Agreement & Drainage details

 

8.         I05 – No drainage to discharge to highway

 

9.         I57 – Sky glow

 

10.       I49 – Design of street lighting for Section 278

 

11.       I51 – Works adjoining highway

 

12.       I47 – Drainage other than via highway system

 

13.       I35 – Highways Design Guide and Specification

 

14.       I62 – Adjoining Property Rights

 

15.       I18 – Rights of way

 

16.       NC11 – Wildlife Informative