Apologies were received from Councillors EMK Chave, KS Guthrie and JG Lester.

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 Hyde attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor Guthrie, Councillor Nenadich for Councillor Lester and Councillor Seldon for Councillor Chave.

Agenda item 7: P141134/O Land Adjacent to Vine Tree Close, Withington, Herefordshire

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 8: P141022/F Land at Pinsley Road, Leominster, Herefordshire

Councillor AN Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of Network Rail which had made representations on the application.

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because a relative lived near to the site.

Agenda item 10: P133439/F Land off Acreage, Whitbourne, Herefordshire

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest because his wife was the Clerk to the Parish Council.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 12: 142088/FH The Lake House, Underdown, Ledbury Herefordshire

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a disclosable pecuniary interest because of a business interest and left the room for the duration of the remainder of the meeting.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed erection of up to 45 dwellings, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works.

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

(Proposed erection of up to 45 dwellings, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works.)

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 S Glover, Clerk to Withington Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Francis, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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 on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had been active in the area.  It had identified other locations for housing development in preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The field it was proposed to develop was at the highest point in the village.

·         The access was unsatisfactory.  It would involve demolishing one property and would have a demonstrably adverse effect on the two neighbouring properties and properties opposite the entrance to the site.

·         There was concern about water run-off from the site, there having been recent experience of flooding as a consequence.  However, it was possible that measures could be taken to control this matter.

·         The development was out of keeping with the character of Withington.

·         He asked whether it would be possible to await a full application rather than determining an outline application.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the size of the development.  There was sympathy with written point 2 in the representation from the Parish Council, that, “whilst there is not a five year supply of land in Herefordshire.  It is unreasonable to expect this shortfall to be met by excessive developments in villages when the demand was primarily for housing in Hereford City and the Market Towns.”

·         The Parish Council had also commented at point 13 of its representation that, “at the highest point the impact of the development on the sky line is a significant intrusion into the landscape”.  The development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the village.

·         There had been 64 letters of objection and more weight should be given to the views of local residents, in accordance with the localism agenda.

·         Greater weight should be given to the detrimental effect of large developments on the County’s rural villages than to the absence of the five year housing land supply.

·         There was a risk that the emphasis on the weight to be given to the absence of a 5 year housing land supply had diverted attention from an analysis of the proposed development itself.

·         The Parish Council had identified preferable sites which would meet the housing growth identified for the area in the draft Local Plan – Core Strategy 2013-2031.  It should be contended that Withington itself did not therefore have a lack of a five year housing land supply.  Localism should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.

The Committee deferred determination of this application.

(Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He reported that a further letter of objection had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Tomkins, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JM Bartlett and PJ McCaull the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Bartlett commented on a number of issues including:

·         She expressed concern about the justification for not requiring a S106 agreement and the absence of any provision for the Council to secure benefits for the community should the scheme prove to be more financially viable than expected.

·         The basis for not having an S106 agreement was a confidential affordable housing viability report.  The conclusions of this assessment meant that the scheme included no social or affordable housing.

·         Whilst the site was a brownfield site and in a poor state this did not mean that any application had to be permitted whatever its shortcomings.  The site was in a sensitive location within the Leominster River Meadows Conservation Area.  A scheme of a high quality of design was required, consistent with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         The pressure to give great weight to the absence of a five year housing land supply seemed to be at odds with the provisions of paragraph 17 of the NPPF and undermine the development and importance of a local plan.

·         Many of the proposed units were extremely small in size.  The assessment of housing need in Leominster was that the greatest need was for 3 bedroom houses.  She questioned how the proposal represented sustainable development as defined in the NPPF.

Councillor McCaull commented on a number of issues including:

·         He was concerned about the quality of design and the small size of many of the proposed units.  The location, alongside the railway line, was also unprepossessing.  He was opposed to the scheme in its present form.

·         The scheme would also mean the removal of the building used by the Leominster Rifle and Pistol Club.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Network Rail had identified the need for any lighting from the development not to interfere with sighting of signals or train drivers vision.  They had also requested a trespass proof fence.  It was suggested that this might need to be closed fencing rather than chain-link mesh to avoid train drivers being distracted by lights from cars using the development.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that if the scheme were approved these matters would be discussed with Network Rail.

·         Some concern was expressed about the proximity of the development to the railway line, the nearest dwelling being about 22 metres away.  A number of properties nearby were suffering from cracks attributed to the railway.  In contrast, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Residential development of up to 51 new dwellings of which up to 18 will be affordable.

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

(Residential development of up to 51 new dwellings of which up to 18 will be affordable.)

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, Mr J Davies of Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Fitzgerald, a resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Lane, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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 on a number of issues including:

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the landscape and character of the area.  It was an urban development in a rural setting.  It would be visible from viewpoints in the Wye Valley AONB.  This was in contrast to the sympathetic Frome Park development nearby.

·         A pedestrian access alongside the A438 was not suitable.  The alternative pedestrian route, whilst satisfactory in the Summer, was not so agreeable in the Winter.

·         The proposed vehicular access off the A438 where the speed limit was 40 mph was a concern.  The proposed ghost right hand turn lane, so close to another one providing access to St Michael’s hospice, would be confusing for oncoming traffic.

·         Welsh Water may have submitted no objection.  However, problems with foul drainage were being experienced by those currently living in the locality.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         There was disappointment at the applicant’s lack of engagement with the Parish Council and the local community.

·         Both pedestrian and vehicular access were of concern.

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had objected to the development and set out good grounds for refusing the application in the report.

·         There was some support for the application, provided assurance could be provided that proposed conditions 6 and 7 set out in the report would ensure a safe vehicular access, and that a 30 mph speed limit could be imposed; that landscaping would prevent intrusion into the Frome Park development, and that trees and hedgerows would be protected as far as possible. 

·         The Engineering Manager commented that it was considered that a safe access could be provided.  The introduction of a 30mph speed limit would have to be subject to a separate Traffic Regulation Order process.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that there would be a landscaping scheme and condition 16 provided for the protection of trees and hedgerows.

·         Concern was expressed at the weight it was suggested should be given to the lack of a five year housing land supply and the undermining of the Parish Council’s development of a Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The development was disproportionate.

·         Having regard to the provisions of the NPPF, the harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Erection of 20 no. new houses, bungalows and apartments and associated parking and amenity space.

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

(Erection of 20 no. new houses, bungalows and apartments and associated parking and amenity space.)

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 the criteria for public speaking, Mrs M Williams, Chairman of Whitbourne Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Gent, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Evans, landowner, and Mr N Knight, a resident, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He outlined the steps he had taken to seek to ensure that the issues had been discussed in the local community and that there was an awareness of the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         There was concern about the volume of extra traffic that the site would generate and the impact on the A44 junction, and the narrow road from the A44 to the village.

·         He had advocated a revision to the location of the access and the applicants had amended their Scheme.  However, concerns remained about the adequacy of the proposed visibility splays.

·         Verbal confirmation had been provided that a footpath would be provided alongside the road to the development.  He requested that if the application were approved the provision of this footpath should be included as a condition.

·         If the scheme were approved measures should be implemented to moderate traffic speed.

·         Whilst layout and design were subjective matters the report described the house designs in the scheme as not groundbreaking.

·         The application proposed that the affordable dwellings would be provided to code level 3.

·         Whitbourne had a mix of dwellings.  It would be hard to argue that the development was out of keeping.

·         He considered, contrary to the officer view, that given the elevated position of the development the visual impact would be substantial.

·         There were concerns about the water run off from the site and flooding.  It was a peculiarity of the planning system that whilst the report stated that a detailed drainage strategy was required, details did not have to be provided prior to an outline planning application being determined.

·         The development was on grade 2 agricultural land and he was surprised that the report described this as being of low ecological value.

·         The site was outside, although adjacent to, the defined settlement boundary.

·         He invited the Committee to consider the cumulative impact of the following concerns he had identified: traffic, access, road layout, visual impact, flooding and the loss of grade 2 agricultural land.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The original access proposed might have been preferable. 

·         The development created a village within a village.

·         The harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits.

·         The view expressed at paragraph 55 of the officer report that, “Government guidance is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

New four bedroom detached dormer style house.

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

(New four bedroom detached dormer style house.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor JF Knipe, the local ward member, questioned why the application had been brought before the Committee.

It was clarified that the proposed development was immediately adjacent to but outside the village settlement boundary.  It was therefore contrary to the relevant saved policy in the Unitary Development Plan and accordingly had had to be submitted to the Committee for determination.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Proposed installation of 16 photovoltaic panels on the roof of a 3-bay open fronted store. 

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

(Proposed installation of 16 photovoltaic panels on the roof of 1 3-bay open fronted store.)

(Councillor PGH Cutter declared a disclosable pecuniary interest and left the room for the duration of the remainder of the meeting.)

(Councillor PA Andrews Vice-Chairman in the chair.)

The Planning Officer presented the report.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor TL Widdows, one of the three local ward members, was invited to speak on the application.  He had no comments.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

INFORMATIVES:

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, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.            N11A Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) - Birds

3.            N11C General Ecology

Date of next site inspection – 18 November 2014

Date of next meeting – 19 November 2014