Proposed residential development of three dwellings.  

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed residential development of three dwellings.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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, Mr T Cramp, of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr T Hancox, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been 32 letters of objection and one letter of objection from the Allensmore Residents Group containing a further 13 signatures.  The Parish Council had also objected to the application urging that it be rejected to safeguard the amenity, character and local landscape of the village and the road safety of local residents.

·        The application was at odds with every relevant planning policy in the Allensmore Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  The NDP was a material consideration in determining the application.

·        The application also contravened several policies within the Core Strategy.  She outlined each policy in turn to demonstrate the cumulative demonstrable harm.

·        NDP Policy A1 – and Core Strategy Policy RA2: The application was not in keeping with the local built character and the linear nature of the village.  Policy RA2 recognised and valued the character and uniqueness of small settlements across the county and sought to ensure this was protected.

·        NDP Policy A2 – & Core Strategy Policy LD2: priority for new development should be to avoid harmful impact on biodiversity.  The Hereford Wildlife Trust had identified a pond 300m away with Great Crested Newts.  This did not appear to be considered in the ecological assessment and therefore it may not be compliant with Core Strategy Policy LD2 in relation to biodiversity

·        The application was contrary to policy A2. The drainage arrangements were not in accordance with the Binding Rules as treated effluent would be going to a dry ditch.  The drainage consultant had stated that if the current proposals were implemented there was a likelihood of pollution on third party land.

·        NDP Policy A3 – The site was outside the planning envelope and had been rejected by the independent assessors AECOM, due to its harm to the character of the settlement.  Allensmore had already significantly exceeded the minimum 14% target growth of 32 new dwellings, 41 having been built or approved.  On its own this was not a reason for refusal provided the application was acceptable in all other regards, which it was not.  There were further site allocations within the Allensmore NDP.  Further housing growth could be achieved without the significant harm that the application would cause.

·        NDP Policy A4 –The application was not within the settlement boundary, not of single depth, and not a brownfield site.  An independent report demonstrated that there was not a suitable and safe access.

·        NDP Policy A5 – The application did not demonstrate how it helped to maintain a suitable mix of tenure, type and size of dwelling in Allensmore.  It was also questioned how the drainage strategy could be properly assessed if the size and consequent load of the properties was unknown.

·        NDP Policy A7 –& Core Strategy Policy SD3 & SD4: With no mains drainage and high-water tables, the ground was known to drain very poorly across the parish.  The drainage solution was not compliant with the Binding Rules, there was likelihood of pollution and heightened risk of flooding elsewhere as identified by the drainage consultant.  Although the applicant claimed that the current arrangements were not technically illegal, at least 3 recommendations from the drainage consultant did not appear to have been acted on: the discouragement of pumped systems because residents would suffer from localised flooding or backed up drains whenever the pumps break down or the power fails; the Introduction and realignment of a reed bed so that it was less likely that effluent would bypass into the dry ditch and clarification as to the adoption and maintenance of the proposed drainage systems.

·        MT1 - In relation to highway safety, it was considered that the development was not designed and laid out to achieve safe entrance and exit. An independent traffic consultant employed by local residents stated that visibility from the proposed access could not be achieved in accordance with National Policy, Guidance from Manual for Streets 2 and the Council’s local adopted standards if measurements were from a point set back by 2 meters per the guidelines.

The Council’s visibility splays were not taken from a point set back by 2 meters, but had a 1m running lane.  Even with a 1m running lane, the Council’s Transportation Manager indicated in the schedule of updates that there was a reduction in visibility below recommended levels.

Residents believed that a 1m running lane was not achievable at the access point to the site and the required visibility splays could not be achieved without access to third party land.

The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment in March 2019 concurred with the conclusions of the independent traffic consultant as it identified this site as low potential with major access issues due to the need for third party land to achieve a suitable access. 

In relation to promoting active travel, the development was situated within an unsustainable location, with limited access to public bus services.  There were no services and facilities within the local area. The development would therefore be reliant on the private car contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        Due to the length of the private road, the site would be in breach of national Manual for Streets guidance and the maximum drag distances for refuse collection which was confirmed in the schedule of updates. This would be particularly harmful for any disabled residents.

·        In conclusion she stated that although the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year land supply and there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development it was considered that the cumulative adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

·        Local residents urged the Committee to reject the application with the aim of safeguarding the amenity, character and local landscape of the village and the road safety of local residents.  This was on the grounds that the application was contrary to NDP Policies A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 together with Core Strategy Policies RA2, LD2, SD3, SD4 and MT1.

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

·        Allensmore was a linear development and the protection of this character, avoiding double depth development, was supported by the NDP.  The NDP was at examination stage and attracted moderate weight.  NDPs deserved appropriate consideration.

·        Recent extreme weather conditions had reinforced the importance of satisfactory drainage arrangements.  It was noted that there had been several attempts to find a drainage solution.  The Land Drainage Consultant maintained his objection to the proposals.  Whilst a proposed condition required a permit to be obtained from the Environment Agency prior to any development, and planning permission could be granted subject to that condition, there was concern that this was not a sufficiently robust solution.

·        There was concern about the access to the site.  It was remarked that there was limited visibility to the right when exiting the site.  It was noted that reference had been made to an independent report produced by a consultant engineer objecting to the application on highway grounds.  However, it was suggested as the author declined to sign it this could not be given weight.

·        The Team Leader Area Engineer explained how the technical assessment had been carried out. In the context of the character and usage of the road network and the relatively minor intensification of use the proposal entailed it had been concluded that the access was acceptable.  The effect was not severe enough to warrant an objection given the relatively high threshold for objections set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·        There was support for the grounds for refusal advanced by the local ward member.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal.

The Development Manager confirmed that moderate weight could be given to the NDP.  In terms of drainage the committee had been advised of the regimes that applied to granting approval for a drainage solution.  The view was that there was a technical solution.  Whilst the land drainage consultant did not consider a compliant proposal had so far been advanced it was possible that the Environment Agency, as the responsible body, could grant a permit if a solution satisfactory to it were to be forthcoming.  That would have to be provided before any development commenced on site.  There was therefore some caution about refusing the application on drainage grounds.  Similarly, there had not been an objection from the Transportation Manager and there was also caution about proposing refusal on that ground.  The independent report objecting on highways grounds submitted by objectors was unsigned and could therefore only be given limited weight.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated the strength of local opposition to the proposal and the extent to which it was considered to be contrary to NDP and Core Strategy policies.  The cumulative adverse impact of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Councillor Phillips proposed and Councillor Foxton seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Core Strategy policies RA2, LD1, LD2, SD3, SD4 and MT1 and Neighbourhood Development Plan policies A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A7.  The motion was carried with 13 votes in favour, none against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies RA2, LD1, LD2, SD3, SD4 and MT1 and Neighbourhood Development Plan policies A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A7. 

(The meeting adjourned between 10.55 am and 11.10am.)