Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, DW Greenow, MAF Hubbard, RI Matthews, TL Widdows and DB Wilcox.

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 WLS Bowen attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews, Councillor EPJ Harvey for Councillor TL Widdows, Councillor JG Jarvis for Councillor DW Greenow, Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes for Councillor MAF Hubbard and Councillor NP Nenadich for Councillor DB Wilcox.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Agenda Item 9: P141157/F Land at Green Lane Cottage, Green Lane, Yarpole.

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she lived in the area and knew the applicant and objectors.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor PJ McCaull as a new Member of the Committee.

Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development.

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

(Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development.)

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 E Dimbylow, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr D Hughes, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor JW Millar spoke on the application indicating his support for it.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The local community had embraced the concept of neighbourhood planning.  It had concluded that the proposed site was the best site for additional housing and that a development of 40 houses was acceptable. 

·         He acknowledged that there were some concerns about the development but he considered that these could be addressed.  Sustainable development required growth in existing villages.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Parish Council had identified the site as the preferred site and had submitted no objection.  This was a good example of localism and the application should be supported.

·         It was requested that the width of the highway be reduced in order to provide a continuous footpath to the development supporting the policy objective of giving priority to the needs of pedestrians.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a continuous footpath of adequate width could be provided and that was now the intention.  However, it may not be possible to provide a path 2 metres wide.  This would be resolved when detailed drawings were completed.

·         Consideration needed to be given at the reserved matters stage to ensuring that the housing was of appropriate design so that it reduced the impact on England’s Gate Inn and the other historic buildings nearby.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that a landscape buffer was proposed.  He drew attention to paragraph 6.35 of the report which recommended further consultation with the Parish Council and local community on the detail of any reserved matters submission.

·         Clarification was sought on how villages were placed in terms of the assessment of the number of houses they could accommodate in the absence of an adopted Core Strategy.  It was asked whether, if the proposed development were approved, it would count towards the allocation identified for Bodenham in the draft Core Strategy.  The Development Manager commented that the Committee could not give weight to the draft Core Strategy in considering the application.  The position would be assessed when the Core Strategy was approved and a Neighbourhood Plan was produced.   The Principal Planning Officer added that the development would count towards the growth identified for the period of the Core Strategy (2011-2031) but a final figure for housing growth for the village could not be confirmed until the Core Strategy was adopted.

·         The Principal Planning Officer clarified the provisions relating to affordable housing set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the draft  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Site for residential development of up to 60 houses.

Officers were authorised to grant outline planning permission in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, and were required to report the detailed application for reserved matters to the Committee for determination.

(Site for residential development of up to 60 houses.)

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.  He elaborated in particular on the land drainage proposals.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AW Johnson, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had identified that the remaining housing need identified for the village within the draft core strategy was now fewer than 50 houses.  However, the proposed development was for up to 60 houses and was too large.  This was his principal concern about the development, although he would also have liked more detail to have been provided.

·         He acknowledged officers comments that concerns about flooding could be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the proposed size of the development noting that the Parish Council had suggested that the site, at a maximum, could accommodate 30 houses. In addition there was concern about the ability of facilities in Cradley to cope with a development of the size proposed.  Existing facilities including the school and Dr’s Surgery appeared to be at capacity.  The village post office had closed.

·         The Development Manager commented that Cradley was identified as a main settlement in the Unitary Development Plan and was identified in the draft core strategy as a village where there would be the main focus for growth.  A development of up to 60 houses was of an acceptable size and the village did have facilities.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the proposal was for up to 60 houses and it was possible that if there were constraints on the site the size of the development could be reduced.  However, a development of up to 60 dwellings was acceptable.  A development of 25 houses per hectare was not a high density.  Given the absence of a five year housing land supply he questioned whether this could be sustained as a ground for refusal of the application.  If at the reserved matters stage the applicant proposed a lower number of houses this could be accommodated.

·         The robustness of the provision in the S106 agreement for maintenance of the on-site Public Open Space (POS) was questioned as the proposed location of the POS. The Principal Planning Officer commented that the provision of POS would be subject to detailed discussions with the applicant.  The proposal was to provide the POS on the site.  The Council did not have the resources to adopt POS.  The location of the POS would also be considered at the reserved matters stage.  The aim would be to mitigate the landscape impact of the development.

·         The viability of the drainage proposals was questioned.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that there was sufficient capacity in the proposed attenuation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Proposed demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of five detached dwellings with new access, garages and parking.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to consultation with the local ward member.

(Proposed demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of five detached dwellings with new access, garages and parking.)

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, Ms J King, Clerk to Yarpole Group Parish Council spoke in objection to the Scheme.  Mr T Rogers of the Yarpole Built Environment Group spoke in objection.  Mr B Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The village wanted the best quality of development for this central and significant site.  Some development would be welcomed if it were of the highest quality of design and layout and the density was acceptable.

·         With the exception of one parish meeting, the developers had not engaged in discussions with the Parish Council, as the Parish Council wished.

·         The Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision of 27 August 2013 raised a number of matters.  The decision had stated that the design of a development on the site should look to reflect the older part of the village.  Although the original plans had been modified to a degree this was still not the case.

·         The development would involve the loss of hedgerow and destroy the character of an historic green lane.

·         He questioned the need to move the existing access.

·         He requested that consideration of the application should be deferred to provide an opportunity for the Parish Council, residents, and the developer to discuss the design and layout to deliver a high class development with a mix of housing.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was asked if it could be required that any houses should be built to at least code 3 of the code for sustainable homes.

·         Clarification was sought on the site level.

·         Villages needed to grow gradually.  The scheme provided such gradual growth and should be supported.

·         The development represented a bridge between the newer and older part of the village

·         The developer was a local builder who would produce a high quality development.  .

·         Green Lane Cottage had become an eyesore and needed to be demolished.  The plot was clearly ripe for development.

·         Design was subjective.  The Scheme represented betterment.

·         One suggestion was that the local ward member should be consulted by officers on final aspects of the Scheme’s design.

·         Another proposal was that consideration should be deferred.  The Parish Council had a clear view of what was required in terms of quality of design and density of development.  There had been insufficient engagement with the developer to date.  A deferral would provide the opportunity for consultation.

·         The Council should demonstrate its support for community led development.

·         An archaeological record of the cottage was requested.

The Development Manager commented that there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Change of use of redundant farm buildings into 3 residential cottages to be used as holiday lets.  Erection of 5 demountable geo domes (or shepherds huts).  Purpose built shower/wc adjacent to farm buildings (to replace soon to be demolished new build stable block).  Communal lounge/dining and kitchen for geo dome guests in existing buildings.

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

(Change of use of redundant farm buildings into 3 residential cottages to be used as holiday lets. Erection of 5 demountable geo domes (or shepherds huts). Purpose built shower/w.c. adjacent to farm buildings (to replace soon to be demolished new build stable block. Communal lounge/dining and kitchen for geo dome guests in existing buildings.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Williams of Clifford Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Cooke, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smolas spoke on behalf of the applicant in support.

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

He expressed concern about the appropriateness, implementation and enforcement of the proposed S106 agreement and whether it was too onerous for the business.  However, he noted that the applicant had agreed to comply with the conditions contained within the agreement.

In debate, reservations were expressed about the proposed use of the S106 agreement and concern expressed that it was disproportionate.

The Development Manager commented that the use of a S106 agreement in this way was unusual.  However, the approach had been proposed in response to concerns expressed by the Committee about access when they had considered the application on 8 January and their wish to protect local residents.  The matter had been brought back to the Committee due to additional detail and because the proposed approach was different from that which had originally been proposed.  The Applicants were content to enter into this potentially punitive agreement.  If the S106 agreement was not supported this would permit unlimited use of the roads to the site.  Members could, however, reject the S106 agreement if they wished.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concern that the proposed S106 agreement was too onerous.  However, he acknowledged that the applicant had agreed to accept the proposal.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a S106 agreement, officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers

Date of next site inspection – 23 September 2014

Date of next meeting – 24 September 2014