Erection of a single storey residential dwelling (c3) with garage, private driveway and creation of new access into the highway.   

 

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an additional provision relating to the access.

(Erection of a single storey residential dwelling (c3) with garage, private driveway and creation of new access into the highway.)

(Councillor Foxton joined the meeting part way through consideration of this item and accordingly was not eligible to vote upon it.  Councillor Fagan fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Development Manager 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Campbell of Garway Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr B McGinley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr S Collinson, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The absence of a five year housing land supply was creating pressure for development to take place.

·        A site for 8 dwellings was being developed to the north an east of the proposed site.  She considered that development to be out of character with the village setting.  .

·        The Parish Council had been active in securing rights to the common land at Garway.  There was a question over an easement that would be required to achieve an access to the proposed development.

·        She referenced sections of the National Design Guide 2019 produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.  This expanded on the provision in the national planning policy framework on the importance of high quality buildings and places and considered how well designed places could be achieved in practice and the identity and character of a place.

·        The proposal before the committee was out of character for the linear settlement of Garway to the detriment of the built environment.

·        There was a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless there were adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

·        Policy SS6 referred to conserving and enhancing those environmental assets that contributed towards the county’s distinctiveness.  This included the settlement pattern.

·        Paragraph 5.3.29 of the Core Strategy informing Policy SD1 referred to sustainable design and the protection of the built environment.

·        There were therefore policies that could be used to protect the built environment and communities in the face of the pressure for development.

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

·        The legal advisor to the committee confirmed that the question of whether an easement could be secured to access the proposed development was not a material consideration.

·        The proposal was for a backland development in a village that was predominantly linear in character.

·        The application was somewhat aspirational in seeking to be environmentally sustainable and could be more positive and definite in that regard.

·        Officers confirmed that the National Design Guide was a recent publication linked to references to design within the NPPF and was a material consideration.  it was noted that local authorities would be required to produce local design guides supplementing the national criteria.

·        Garway was a sustainable village.

·        One view was that the design of the dwelling was fine and that there were a range of designs within the village. It was accessed off a long driveway but this was not detrimental.  It could hardly be seen from the road.  There was a shortage of bungalows.  A contrary view was that the design was not in keeping with the character of the village and was contrary to the design guide principles.

·        Whilst noting the objections from the parish council, there were no objections from the statutory consultees.

·        As set out at paragraph 6.20 of the report the harm identified in many of the objections was limited and did not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

·        A concern was expressed about the proposed drainage arrangements and it was suggested that further detail should be sought.

The Lead Development Manager reiterated that weight could be given to the design guide within the context of the core strategy and the NPPF.  He noted that the Government was consulting on new future homes standards.  Current policy was that backland development was acceptable provided it created no harm to adjoining development.  That was the case with this application. He suggested that in view of comments made relating to securing access that officers should be authorised to grant planning permission subject to clarification to ensure that the visibility splays did not cross common land.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that the view in the draft NDP was that development should be linear, not backland development.  This was consistent with the National Design Guide’s comments on the character and identity of a place and local distinctiveness.  Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 provided grounds for refusal of the application.

Councillor Hunt proposed and Councillor Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance the printed recommendation with provision to ensure that the visibility splays did not cross common land.  The motion was carried with 8 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers, and subject to officers being satisfied that the visibility splays did not cross common land:

1.         C01 - Time limit for commencement (Full Permission)

           

2.         C06 - Development in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. CLL19.01 02, 03, 04 and 05 and 19-02-02 01 D)

 

3.         C13 - Samples of external materials

 

4.         CE6 - Efficient use of water

 

5.         All foul water shall discharge through connection to new private foul water treatment system with final outfall to suitable soakaway drainage field on land under the applicant’s control; and all surface water shall discharge to appropriate soakaway systems; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

            Reason: In order to comply with Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2018), National Planning Policy Framework, NERC Act (2006), and Herefordshire Local  Core Strategy  policies LD2, SD3 and SD4.

 

6.         Before any work commences and, equipment or materials moved on to site, a detailed Arboriculture Method Statement and Plan (based on guidance in BS5837:2012) should be submitted and approved by the local authority and shall be implemented and remain in place until all work is complete on site and all equipment and spare materials have been finally removed. Any loss or impacts to any hedgerow or trees resulting from the construction phase should be compensated for by new planting of native species hedgerows/trees with a full specification and 5 year establishment-management plan supplied. All trees and woody shrubs proposed for planting should only be of locally characteristic, native species.

 

            Reason: To safeguard all retained trees during development works and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies LD1 and LD3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

7.         No external lighting should illuminate any of the adjacent habitats; boundary or enhancement features.

 

            Reason: To comply with Herefordshire Core Strategy policies LD1 LD2 and LD3 and the Dark Skies initiative (DEFRA-NPPF 2013/18)

 

8.         Within 3 months of completion of the approved works evidence (such as photos/signed Ecological Clerk of Works completion statement) of the suitably placed ecological enhancements as recommended in the report by Pure Ecology dated February 2019 should be supplied to and acknowledged by the local authority; and shall be maintained hereafter as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. No external lighting should illuminate any enhancement or boundary feature.

 

            Reasons: To ensure that all species and habitats are protected and enhanced having regard to the       Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017),        National Planning Policy Framework (2018), NERC Act (2006)

 

9.         CK3 - Landscape Scheme

 

10.       CK4 – Implementation

 

11.       CAB - Visibility splays (2.4 X 39.8m - Southbound, 2.4 x 43.5m northbound)

 

12.       CAE - Vehicular access construction

 

13.       CAH - Driveway gradient

 

14.       CAI - Parking - single/shared private drives

 

15.       CAL - Access, turning area and parking

 

16.       CAT - Construction Management Plan

 

17.       CBK - Restriction of hours during construction

 

18.       CBN - Drainage in accordance with approved plans

 

INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         IP2 - Application Approved Following Revisions

 

2.         I11 - Mud on highway

 

3.         I09 - Private apparatus within highway

 

4.         I45 - Works within the highway

 

5.         I05 - No drainage to discharge to highway

 

6.         I47 - Drainage other than via highway system

 

7.         I35 - Highways Design Guide and Specification