Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.

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

(Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred by the Committee on 19 June 2019. 

Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.  The PPO noted that condition 22 of the outline planning permission in respect of sustainable drainage had not yet been discharged but was considered to address a concern raised by a representation in the update about drainage and ecological implications.  These matters were addressed within the report.

The Government had published a revision of the Planning Practice Guidance on noise just before midnight on 22 July.  The application had been reviewed in the light of this updated guidance and officers had concluded the noise assessment provided by the applicant remained valid.  The Ornua cheese factory was not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the proposed dwellings. The proposal was considered to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

A late representation had been received from Ornua Ingredients UK Ltd containing a further assessment of tonal noise. 

The applicant’s noise consultants had responded.  The PPO read this response in full to the meeting along with the Environmental Health Officer’s response to the representation.  This information has been included with the updates appended to these minutes.  The consultants maintained their position, that sound from the Ornua factory was not tonal, therefore no noise penalty should be applied.  The EHO did not recommend a noise penalty.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr P Kinnaird, a local resident, spoke in objection. Mr S Stanion spoke on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson homes in support of the application together with Stella Yates of West Mercia Housing Ltd.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor I’Anson, spoke on the application.  She made the following principal points:

·        Residents wanted the site issues to be resolved and the development to proceed.  She noted that St Michael’s church had formed a group to welcome new residents and the Church was seeking to purchase land for a new school. 

·        The development was not perfect.  She highlighted key changes to the application since the last Planning and Regulatory Committee as set out in the committee update:  amendments to the affordable housing layout; enhanced landscaping plans, including increased tree planting along the southern boundary; introduction of communal vegetable planters and provision of additional orchard walks; enhanced connectivity plans for pedestrian, cycle and potential bus routes; preparation and submission of CGI views along northern, southern and western boundaries; updated waste management plan; updated energy statement supporting fabric first approach; and improved play areas for children of all ages including an informal kickabout area.

·        The PPO had commented on the latest noise assessments in his presentation.

·        She was concerned that if the application were refused the applicant would be successful at appeal resulting in costs being incurred.

A statement submitted by Councillor Howells, an adjoining ward member, was read to the meeting.  This is included within the amended update appended to these minutes.

Another adjoining ward member, Councillor Harvey, then spoke on the application.  She made the following principal comments:

·        She supported the representation from Councillor Howells.

·        She welcomed the new planting and play areas offered by the developers.  However, she did not consider that these improvements outweighed the significant negative aspects of the development that remained.

·        The Neighbourhood Development Plan had had to acknowledge the outline planning permission that had been granted but this should not be taken as support for the scheme.  The application had received large numbers of objections at all stages.

·        The complex noise issues remained a concern as outlined in the further representations from Ornua.  It appeared that further measurements could and should be undertaken to establish whether there was tonal noise, noting the implications this could have.

·        She also questioned the measurement of the intermittent noise generated from the Ledbury Bypass as a result of the location of the speed limit, the available measurements having apparently been taken in 2014, prior to the development, when the national speed limit had applied along that length of road.

·        There would be merit in moving the speed limit further away from the roundabout than it currently was so that vehicles approached the development and pedestrian crossing at a lower speed involving less braking.

·        The provision of affordable housing was welcome. However, the proposal simply met the Core Strategy’s requirement.  There were other sites identified for Ledbury within the Core Strategy that would provide over 200 affordable homes.

·        She drew attention to the Land Drainage Engineer’s comments at page 65 of the agenda papers which indicated the need for more information to be provided.

·        She questioned the economic and social benefits advanced for the scheme.  She considered that the scheme had adverse social and landscape impact breaching the bypass that formed the southern boundary to the Town.  The scheme had been approved by a planning inspector on appeal.

·        The insertion of 7 private houses into the affordable housing that she had previously described as a buffer protecting the private housing from noise nuisance was not the response that she had been expecting. She considered the approach to the development to be out of date.

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

 

In response to questions the PPO and Lead Development Manager commented:

 

·        The bund and fence surrounding the development would be 5 metres high.

·        The applicants had sought to attenuate the noise from the cheese factory considerably.

·        The principle of development for housing on the site had been approved by the Planning Inspector at appeal.  The Committee could therefore only consider the detail of the scheme.

·        Condition 22 on the outline planning permission as imposed by the Planning Inspector covered drainage issues.  The discharging of that condition was not part of the application before the Committee. Officers were working with the drainage consultants and the applicants on this aspect.  Appropriate monitoring arrangements could form part of those discussions.

 

·        The EHO commented in detail on the methodology used in assessing noise at the site. Tonal noise had been identified originally.  However, mitigation measures had led to the view that the tonal element was removed completely or significantly reduced.  This was also the view of the applicants’ noise consultants. There were three methods of identifying tonal noise.  Ornua had not found tonal noise using two methods but using the third method had identified a degree of tone stating this meant a penalty should be applied.  The council was not comfortable with this because the other methods had not identified a problem. She did not consider that it would be reasonable to give these late findings too much weight.

She added that there was no methodology for assessing the intermittent noise effect of braking vehicles.  The test was whether desirable internal and external noise standards could be met inside houses and gardens.  There was noise alongside Leadon Way.  Houses would have to be moved half way across the site if the noise impact on houses was not to breach the desirable standard with the windows open. However, there could still potentially be an impact on houses facing Leadon Way.  Particularly in the daytime houses facing Leadon Way would be exposed to road traffic noise.  The developers were to deploy an enhanced glazing specification and an acoustic fence.  The desirable standard could be achieved with windows closed at the front and achieved to the rear of properties with the windows open.  Residents could use the green spaces that were to be provided.  There was a policy issue in that if housing development was to take place near towns road noise would be experienced and some of the strategic sites in Ledbury would be adversely affected by road traffic noise at its boundaries.

·        The Area Engineer commented that a 30mph speed limit had been in place during the access construction phase.  There was now a 40mph limit.  Extending the speed limit would require a Traffic Regulation Order.  There were quieter road surface options but the chosen material matched the rest of the length of the bypass.  Any potential for noise mitigation had to be balanced against the lifespan and cost of a different surface, which might not deliver a significantly quieter surface.

The LDM advised that a condition seeking to require the developer to seek a TRO for a 30 mph limit would be inappropriate.  A contribution could be considered within the context of the S106 contributions associated with the application.

·        A concern was expressed about the lack of consultation with the local community to which reference had been made.  The LDM commented on the consultation that had been undertaken.

·        The absence of renewal energy provision was of regret.

·        A reduction in the speed limit on Leadon Way would be welcome given the housing development.

·        The severance of the development from the Town by the bypass clearly created sustainable transport issues.  Reference was made to a report by the organisation Transport for New Homes with recommendations aimed at achieving sustainable development and the House of Commons Transport Select Committee report: active travel – increasing the levels of cycling and walking in England which was critical of local authority implementation of cycling and walking infrastructure.  The scheme did not seem to take account of these recommendations.

·        The current provisions in the core strategy regarding the climate emergency were limited but the scheme appeared in no way to have taken account of Core Strategy Policy SS7 in terms of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging sustainable travel.  The Council should press the Government to provide a policy framework to address these concerns.

·        The Lead Development Manager reiterated in conclusion that the principle of development had previously been agreed by a Planning Inspector following an appeal.  The technical issues including a late submission by Ornua had been considered and assessed.  The technical advice in relation to noise issues was that the scheme could be recommended for approval.  Ledbury had not had any affordable housing built for over 12 years.  The provision of 110 affordable dwellings as part of the development should be given significant weight.  Condition 22 addressed the drainage issues.  The benefits of the scheme were considerable.  There were pavements throughout the site, a separate cycle route through to the Town.  Fencing would be required, however, alongside Leadon Way this would be behind a mature hedge.  There had only been 6 objections to the reserved matters application.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Harvey commented that it had been made clear that some residents would have to go to the green play areas to enjoy space without noise nuisance.  The houses would have to be moved half way across the site if recommended noise levels were to be achieved.  Affordable housing provision was at the level required by policy.  Hundreds of objections had been made to the applications for housing development to the south of the Town.  There had been a lack of engagement with the Town Council and the local community on how the unwanted development could be made more acceptable.  If the application were to be approved she welcomed the suggestion that consideration be given to using S106 monies to reduce traffic speed along Leadon Way.  It remained open to Ornua to pursue concern about the impact on their business.

Councillor I’Anson provided some examples demonstrating the need for affordable housing in Ledbury.

Councillor Shaw proposed and Councillor Millmore seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:  That Approval of Reserved Matters be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers.

 

1.         The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and details.

 

            Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans and to protect the general character and amenities of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

           

 

2.         Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted details for the long term maintenance of the acoustic fence and structural noise mitigation adjoining Leadon Way as shown on the approved plans listed under Condition 1,  shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The maintenance of the fence and noise mitigation shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: To ensure the long term mitigation of noise and ensure adequate amenity to residents of the development hereby approved and to comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS6 and SD1 and the relevant aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework as relate to noise and associated amenity are satisfied.

 

 

3.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

            The soft landscaping scheme approved as shown on the approved plans listed under Condition xx and xx of this Decision Notice shall be carried out concurrently with the development hereby permitted and shall be completed no later than the first planting season following the completion of the development. The landscaping shall be maintained for a period of xx years.  During this time, any trees, shrubs or other plants which are removed, die or are seriously retarded shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar sizes and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.  If any plants fail more than once they shall continue to be replaced on an annual basis until the end of the xx year maintenance period. The hard landscaping shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted

 

            Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to conform with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.         G13 Tree planting

 

            With the exception of any site clearance and groundwork (excluding any works to retained features), no further  development shall take place until a scheme of tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of the species, sizes and positions or density of all trees to be planted and the proposed time of planting.  All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

 

            The trees shall be maintained for a period of xx years.  During this time, any trees that are removed, die or are seriously retarded shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar sizes and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.  If any trees fail more than once they shall continue to be replaced on an annual basis until the end of the xxyear maintenance period.

 

            Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to conform with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.         G14 Landscape management plan

            A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use.  The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

 

            Reason: In order to maintain the visual amenities of the area and to conform with Policy LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

7.         Maintenance condition for acoustic fence

 

8.         No development shall be undertaken to commence details of the play areas including equipment, surfacing, landscaping, means of enclosure and provision of seating, litter bins and the phasing of their provision until plans have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The play areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as approved.

 

            Reason: in order to comply with the requirements of the Polices OS1 and OS2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

9.         Development shall be carried out in accordance with glazing specification details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter included as such within the development and thereafter maintained.

 

            Reason: To ensure adequate levels of amenity are maintained with those dwellings and to Comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies SS6 and SD1 and paragraphs 127 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

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.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 12.00pm and 12.10pm)