Apologies were received from Councillors JW Hope, RI Matthews and RL Mayo.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DC Taylor attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

Agenda item 7: P132028/F Land at Over Ross Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as his business had had dealings with the Company that owned the site.  However, he had had no dealings with the applicant and no link to the site itself.  He was also a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor BA Durkin declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Agenda item 8: P141526/O Land South of Hampton Dene Road, Hereford

Councillor DW Greenow declared a disclosable pecuniary interest because he used to rent the land and his sister lived opposite to the site.  He left the meeting for the duration of this item.

Councillor DB Wilcox declared a non-pecuniary interest because he lived in the vicinity of the site and would be affected by traffic increase.

Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest, because of an association with the area because his wife was involved with the Hampton Dene Church Nursery.

Agenda item 9: P141155/F Land adj Stone House, Bromyard Road, Ridgeway Cross, Cradley, WR13 5JN

Councillor GR Swinford declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as his Partnership had acted as Planning Agent.  He left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were none,

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 retail foodstore, car parking, new access road, landscaping, associated works and change of use of Overross Garage Showroom Building to Class D2.

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

(Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 retail foodstore, car parking, new access road, landscaping, associated works and change of use of Overross Garage Showroom Building to Class D2.)

(Councillors Cutter, Durkin and Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests.)

The Principal Planning Officer 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 Utting, of Ross-on-Wye Town Council spoke in support of the Scheme in principle, subject to conditions.  Mr P Quinn, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Sutton, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

Whilst the majority of the site was in the Ross East Ward a small portion was in the Ross West Ward.  In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson, CM Bartrum and PGH Cutter, three of the four local ward members, spoke on the application.  It was noted that the fourth local ward member, Councillor RL Mayo, was unable to do so because he had a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Councillor Atkinson commented on a number of issues including:

·         He and his fellow ward member Councillor Cutter had made considerable efforts to gauge local opinion.  He praised the constructive way in which residents had approached and considered the application.

·         The effect on the viability of the Town Centre was a significant consideration.  On balance his view was that those people who shopped in the Town Centre would continue to do so rather than shop in a supermarket.  The development would therefore not damage existing shops in the Town Centre but would offer more choice to those who wished to shop in a supermarket

·         A petrol station had initially formed part of the plans but had been withdrawn.  There had appeared to be public support for the competition that would have provided.

·         An Aldi store was under construction in the town.  It would have been helpful to have been able to assess the impact that had before considering an application for a further supermarket.

·         The Morrisons store was overtrading and many felt that it was not a pleasurable shopping experience.  There was some popular support for another supermarket.  However, there were also people opposed to the application.

·         Account needed to be taken of the new housing developments in Ross-on-Wye.

·         He was not aware of any other suitable sites for a supermarket within or on the edge of the Town Centre.  This meant that any future applications would have to be for an out of Town store.

·         He was sceptical of the number of jobs it was claimed the new store would generate, noting the possible impact on the Morrisons Supermarket.

Councillor Bartrum made the following principal points:

·         He supported the application, subject to conditions.

·         The viability and vitality of the Town Centre was important.  In his view those who shopped in independent stores would, however, continue to do so.  The Tesco store would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Proposed residential development (up to 110 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

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

(Proposed residential development (up to 110 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.)

(Councillor DW Greenow having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest left the meeting for the duration of this item..  Councillor DB Wilcox and Mr K Bishop declared non-pecuniary interests.)

The Principal Planning Officer 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.  The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the updated position on proposed section 106 contributions from the developer and further comment from the Transportation Manager which concluded that the transportation impact of the proposal was considered acceptable, subject to conditions.  The update noted that condition 10 in the report relating to junction improvement/off-site works could be deleted.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr N White, Chairman of Hampton Bishop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs M Joel, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr K Whitmore, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution,   Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         An appeal against non-determination of an earlier application was pending.

·         The applicant had originally proposed 95 houses at a public exhibition.  The earlier application submitted had been for up to 120 houses.  The current application was for up to 110 houses.  He did not consider this to be a sufficient reduction and thought a development of between 60-70 houses would be more feasible.

·         The development could have a considerable effect upon the highway.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had stated that the revised application was not materially different from the original one.

·         He welcomed the Section 106 agreement proposals.

Councillor JLV Kenyon and Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, as adjoining Ward Members, were also invited to speak.

Councillor Kenyon spoke in support of the Scheme welcoming the proposed Section 106 contributions which would enable a number of initiatives he had promoted to the benefit of the community to be delivered.  There was local support for the scheme and no one had spoken to him opposing it.  The Scheme would deliver much needed housing 35 % of which would be affordable housing.  It was of concern that the original application for up to 120 houses was the subject of an appeal and carried with it none of the Section 106 contributions provided for within the revised application.

Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes commented that the housing was much needed.  She had received no objections to the application and on balance considered it would benefit both the Tupsley Ward and Hampton Bishop.  She hoped that consideration would be given to providing for different designs of properties within the development, enhanced landscaping and traffic management at the Church Street junction. 

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Assurance was sought that Hampton Bishop Parish Council’s concerns about drainage would be met by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Proposed single storey dwelling with detached double garage.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officr’s recommendation.

(Proposed single storey dwelling with detached double garage.)

(Councillor GJ Swinford having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Senior Planning Officer 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 R Page, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

Members supported the view of officers set out at paragraph 6.22 of the report that the application was not compliant with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

Informative:

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 and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Proposed removal of conditions 6 and 7 and variation of condition 8 of planning permission DMS/110566/F (Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new bungalow and garage block, construction of drive area and landscaping) to allow removal of Yew Tree and to facilitate excavation, consolidation, surfacing, tarmac area and drainage of the driveway.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to conditions.

(Proposed removal of conditions 6 and 7 and variation of condition 8 of planning permission DMS/110566/F (Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new bungalow and garage block, construction of drive area and landscaping) to allow removal of Yew Tree and to facilitate excavation, consolidation, surfacing, tarmac area and drainage of the driveway.)

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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented that the applicant had initially been given to understand by the Council that the Yew Tree to which the application before the Committee referred would be removed.  The tree was impeding the applicant in implementing the planning permission that he had been granted. He should be permitted to remove it.

The debate opened.  The applicant’s frustration was acknowledged.  Some Members considered that there were grounds for removing the tree because it impeded the applicant’s access.  Others considered that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the tree’s removal.  The offer of a replacement tree was noted.

The Legal Officer advised the Committee that it was required to determine the matter having regard to material planning considerations and not the history of land ownership and the quality of communication in relation to the site in the past.  She confirmed that if the Committee was minded to remove the conditions of the planning permission the Tree Preservation Order would be rendered ineffective.  The Committee needed to decide whether there was evidence to support a view that removal of the tree was necessary in order for the planning permission to be implemented. 

The Conservation Manager outlined some of the background to the issue and the reason why conditions had been imposed at the time of the application protecting the Yew Tree and why a Tree Preservation Order had subsequently been served.  She commented that one of the conditions permitted cutting of the tree canopy to a height of 2.5m which would allow vehicle access to the development site.

The Development Manager commented that the Council as Highway Authority had given an assurance prior to the submission of a planning application that the Yew Tree would be felled.  This work had not taken place once it transpired that land ownership was in doubt.  The conditions requiring the tree’s retention had been applied when planning permission for the development had been granted.  He added that there was a secondary access to the site that had been used during construction work.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the applicant could not access his property normally and that lifting the canopy of the tree would not be sufficient.  His view was that the application should be approved.

A motion that the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation in the report was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Date of next site inspection – 5 August 2014

Date of next meeting – 6 August 2014