Proposed 2, 3 and 5 bedroom mixed residential development for 21 dwellings with associated accesses and garaging.

Proposed 2, 3 and 5 bedroom mixed residential development for 21 dwellings with associated accesses and garaging.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to page 59 of the report and advised that the breakdown of the numbers of dwellings should refer to ten three-bed units and not eleven.  He also advised that Lower Bullingham Parish Council’s comments on page 61 should refer to ‘piecemeal’ and not ‘peacefull’ approach.  It was reported that amended plans had been received but, as further consultation was necessary, the recommendation remained that of delegation to officers.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, a Local Ward Member, noted the concerns of Hereford City Council and concurred with Lower Bullingham Parish Council that the piecemeal approach was regrettable.  He felt that the traffic problems in the vicinity would be exacerbated by this development but it was noted that the principle of development had been established as part of the ‘masterplan’ for the site.

A number of Members noted that the final number of houses on the Bradbury Lines site would be substantially more than that originally proposed.  Some Members felt that later phases of development should have much higher proportions of affordable housing.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that some 445 houses had been approved to date out of the 500 envisaged in the masterplan.  Some Members commented on other developments where a piecemeal approach to development had resulted in infrastructure problems.

In response to the suggestion that there should be more open space, the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the fact that there would be some 2.5 hectares of mixed use open space for the whole development and would be no more than 100m from this application site.

In response to a question from Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon, the Principal Lawyer (Planning, Environment and Transport) advised that the restriction of certain types of vehicles from parking in the vicinity could not be addressed through planning conditions.  She added that such restrictions were sometimes included as covenants by the developer on new properties but these were an entirely civil matter.  The Development Control Manager added that enforcement action would only be an issue if it involved a blatantly commercial use at a residential dwelling, e.g. ice cream vans with functioning refrigeration units.

RESOLVED:

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions/notes and any additional conditions/notes considered necessary by Officers.

1.         E17 (No windows in side elevation of extension) (southern elevation of plots 12, 13, 18 and 21).

            Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

Informatives:

1.         N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

2.         The applicant's attention is drawn to the Conditions attached to Outline Planning Permission reference CE2001/2757/O which require further details to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of the development.

3.         N02 - Section 106 Obligation.

4.         The applicant is advised that the Council will be requiring a higher proportion of affordable housing, primarily rented, under phase 3.  The affordable housing mix within phase 3 should also include a higher proportion of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings and 2 bedroom bungalows for rent and shared ownership.

5.         In light of the higher density development and the likely increase in the total number of units, the Council will be requiring additional contributions for community, transport and environmental benefits on or in the locality of the site.