Demolition of 2 no. agricultural buildings. Proposed 4 no. dwellinghouses with garages, landscaping and associated works.

Application deferred.

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application and provided the following verbal update to the committee:

A further email regarding the application had been received which raised 2 points:

On the foul water drainage strategy, the proposal is to lay a discharge pipe from the package treatment plant to the River Lodon to the east. The applicant states that he has the relevant ownership. However, he only has ownership to the culvert / ditch immediately to the east of the site and not to the river tributary itself some further distance away. He cannot discharge into the culvert as this is dry for part of the year and subject to flooding in periods of heavy rain. This needs clarification as I am not sure everyone understands the nature of what is being proposed. Indeed,

I am fairly sure that Land Drainage believe discharge will be into the river and not the culvert whereas the developer is intending to use the culvert.

On the traffic, paragraph 6.60 of your report is technically incorrect.

Traffic from the site cannot turn right through Monkhide as this access is private and restricted with access only being granted to the residents of Monskbury Court itself, the emergency services, and Herefordshire Council's utility services. I believe the owner of LTF Properties (applicant) has a similar right. Furthermore, you will note from the approval of the 7 houses adjacent (192765) that there is a planning condition that residents may only use the access onto the A417 to avoid any increase in traffic on the narrow and twisty road between Monkhide and the A4103. This followed previous concerns of the Highways department in relation to an earlier refused planning application in Monkhide itself. You may wish to make note of this as the condition should also apply to any additional housing as now proposed.

A response to the email had been provided by the agent to the application:

With regards the comments in respect of foul drainage, you will note that the proposal is for the package treatment plant to discharge to the ditch to the east of the site and not to the River Lodon as suggested. This is documented in the submitted ‘Surface Water Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment and Foul Drainage Strategy: Barns at Monksbury Court Rev. 2’ and has been confirmed as acceptable by the Council land drainage officer. The applicant owns the necessary land and permissions for this without the need to cross any third party land.

Relevant extracts:

‘Broadlands Road is to the East of the site which is a private road and has a ditch on the Eastern side. The ditch is an ordinary watercourse.’ (Foul Drainage Strategy)

‘Treated effluent from the Package Treatment Plant should be discharged to the watercourse. The base of ditch level is approximately 97.36mAOD and the site is 98.87mAOD. Therefore the package treatment plant can drain via gravity to the ditch.’ (Foul Drainage Strategy)

The Applicant has confirmed that they own the land between the redline site boundary and watercourse, so no third party permissions to lay the discharge pipe are required. (Land Drainage Officer Comments)

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the key considerations for the committee were whether the application site was in the right place and if the layout on the site was appropriate. It was highlighted that Yarkhill Parish Council had made extensive representations on the application containing a significant number of objections. Among objections was the issue of flooding which continued to be a serious concern for the parish council. A key issue centred on whether the proposal made best use of the land in which it was located. The existing housing on the site was felt to be very compact and cramped. There was concern that the current application would introduce another portion of housing within a restricted space which would also feel cramped. In particular, the gardens of the proposed houses were very small. It was understood that an argument could be posed that the proposed housing was in keeping with the vernacular due to the newer houses won on appeal but this was not felt to be a persuasive argument and should not be used to set a precedent. The use of the land on the site plan and the layout of the houses in the application was queried. It was questioned whether the plan would result in acceptable residential amenity for existing and new residents on the site. It was also queried whether the relationship of the houses to the historic converted barns was appropriate; the new housing proposed was very close to the barns. It was felt that there was scope on the site to change the plans in order to lessen the impact of the new housing on the historic barns and to produce a layout which was less restricted; this would help mitigate the potential impacts on residential amenity to new and existing residents.

The committee debated the application. The following principal points were raised:

• The proposed design of the houses was felt to be out of keeping in the local area. There would be an unacceptable impact on the locality and the landscape posed by the design of the houses and alternative materials for the proposed housing should be considered.
• The proposed houses were sited in very close proximity to existing properties on the site and lack of privacy and overlooking were concerns. There was concern that the proposed houses would be overbearing on the barn conversions as a consequence of the ridge heights which were too high. It was felt that existing dwellings on the site would overlook the houses proposed in the application. The proposed houses were in a lower position on the site to those houses that had been approved at appeal. There were no trees planned between housing on the site to provide screening or mitigate the impact of overlooking and loss of privacy. The restricted and cramped nature of the layout would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. It was noted that there was scope on the site to change the layout to mitigate the cramped nature of the housing proposed.
• The layout of the site was felt to be very cramped and it was noted there was no rear access to the houses proposed.
• A condition should be added to any permission that was provided to ensure that renewable and sustainable facilities were included in the houses on the site.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that during decision-making consideration needed to be made of existing and new residents whose amenity should be protected. The houses won on appeal on the site did not set a precedent and there were material considerations for the committee to determine during decision making.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and councillor Dave Davis seconded a motion to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and an extra condition to ensure renewable and sustainable facilities were provided in the houses built on the site.

The motion was put to the vote and was lost by a simple majority.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion that the application be deferred, to allow for changes to the application which take account of the following issues identified by the committee:

• The scale of the houses was excessive and would cause overlooking of the historic barns resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity;
• The layout of the site was excessively restricted and cramped. The new houses would be located too close to those won on appeal which would be overbearing and cause overlooking resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity;
• The design of the houses was out of keeping with the local vernacular and resulted in an unacceptable impact on the landscape. A better use of materials and improved design was required to mitigate the impact of the Development on the landscape and to ensure that it was in-keeping with the local area.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED:

That the application is deferred, to allow for changes to the application which take account of the following issues identified by the committee:

• The scale of the houses was excessive and would cause overlooking of the historic barns resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity;
• The layout of the site was excessively restricted and cramped. The new houses would be located too close to those won on appeal which would be overbearing and cause overlooking resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity;

·       The design of the houses was out of keeping with the local vernacular and resulted in an unacceptable impact on the landscape. A better use of materials and improved design was required to mitigate the impact of the Development on the landscape and to ensure that it was in-keeping with the local area.

There was an adjournment at 10:49 a.m.; The meeting reconvened at 10:59 a.m.