Apologies were received from Councillors JLV Kenyon, JG Lester, RI Matthews, RL Mayo and TL Widdows.

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.

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

Agenda item 11 – 150373 – The Laurels, Wellington, Hereford

Mr M Willimont, Head of Development Management and Environmental Health declared a pecuniary interest as he was the applicant and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 4 March.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings held on 4 March 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reported that Mr P Mullineux, Senior Planning Officer, was leaving the authority.  He thanked him, on behalf of the Committee, for his hard work in dealing with a number of difficult applications presented to the Committee.

Proposal for 7 no. Dwellings with garages and parking.

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

(Proposal for 7 no.Dwellings with 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, Mr K Goodman, of Eardisley Group Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs Y King, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The proposed access to the site was not the one which the Parish Council had criticised in its objection.

·         There were only twelve letters of objection which was a low percentage of the relevant population.

·         There was adequate drainage.

·         The School had capacity.

·         The development was not of a high density; the reduction from a proposal for 13 dwellings to 7 dwellings was welcome.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         Although the reduction in the number of dwellings brought some benefits to those living nearby it did mean that the developer was not required to enter into a Section 106 agreement or provide any affordable housing.  The Development Manager confirmed that should the developer wish to increase the number of dwellings a further application would be required and S106 considerations could apply.

·         The proposed development had many good features.  It was a small scale development which would benefit the village.

·         There were no grounds for refusal and weight needed to be given to the Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply.

·         Traffic speed on the A438 was of particular concern.  It was asked whether the developer could be encouraged, working with the Parish Council, to contribute to measures to slow traffic down.  In response it was noted that an informative could be added to this effect.

·         In relation to the use of speed indicator devices the Transportation Manager confirmed that the Council’s policy was not to install permanent devices.  The Development Manager also confirmed that no condition could be imposed to extend double white lines to prevent overtaking at the location.

·         The site had been proposed for development in the draft Eardisley Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The hope was expressed that pedestrian access could be improved.

·         It was requested that the quality of building and energy efficiency measures should be to the highest standard.

·         A concern was expressed about drainage.  In response the Senior Planning Officer commented that the site was not in the flood plain.  There had been no objections from Welsh Water or the Land Drainage Manager and appropriate conditions were recommended.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his comment about access to the site, noting that the majority of the road at the location already had double white line marking and that speed indicator devices were used.

RESOLVED: That officers named in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.

Proposed erection of two dwellings with garages.

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

(Proposed erection of two dwellings with garages.)

The Acting 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, Ms C Sincock, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr B Thomas, 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 PM Morgan, spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council supported the application.  The development was a small development in line with the Bishop’s Frome Neighbourhood Plan.

·         She acknowledged the concerns expressed that the development could set a precedent and lead to further applications for backfill and garden developments which would begin to have an adverse effect.   However, the particular application had a relatively minor impact and privacy of neighbours was protected.

·         She noted that the road was subject to flooding and urged that the conditions relating to drainage ensured an enhancement of the present situation. 

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The impact on the Grade ll listed Broadfield Court was discussed.  The Acting Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Broadfield Court was approximately 100 metres away and separated in part from the proposed development by another small residential development.

·         The Parish Council supported the development which was consistent with the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Concern was expressed about the impact of garden developments on the character and setting of settlements and the loss of open green space within settlements. It was suggested that the Committee needed to bear this in mind when considering such applications.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her request for enhancement of the drainage in the location and requested that landscaping also provided enhancement, ensuring privacy and preserving the character of the area.

The Development Manager commented that the development created no additional harm to the setting and represented the organic growth that the Committee had indicated it favoured.  The protection of open space within settlements was an important consideration. Progressing the Neighbourhood Plan to Regulation 16 stage, at which point material weight could be given to the Plan, would be an important means of securing such protection.

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

1.       C01 – Planning permission                                                                 

2.       C06 – Development in accordance with approved plans

3.       C13 – Samples of external materials

4.       Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

          Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and to comply with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies DR2, DR4, DR7 and CF1.

5.       No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

          Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

Proposed subservient single storey self contained annexe, ancillary to existing dwelling house.

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

(Proposed subservient single storey self contained annexe, ancillary to existing dwelling house.)

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, Mr P Mason, of Vowchurch Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs Prosser-Painting, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He agreed with the Parish Council’s view on the application.  There would be no objection to an extension.  However, what was proposed was not an extension but a new, self-contained, detached permanent dwelling in the open countryside.

·         He referred to the description of the application at paragraph 1.3 of the report and the officer’s appraisal at paragraph 6.1 of the report which considered the principle of the development to be broadly acceptable in the context of Policy H7 – housing in the countryside outside settlements, on the basis that the annexe represented ancillary accommodation not a new dwelling.  He questioned that appraisal.

·         The intention to use the building to provide accommodation for the applicant’s mother to enable the family to provide her with care was not relevant to the application.

·         He questioned how a proposed condition, requiring the functioning of the annexe to be ancillary to the use of the main dwelling to avoid the potential establishment of a new dwelling, could be enforced.

·         There was concern that approval of the application could set a precedent encouraging further similar developments.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         It was appropriate to give consideration to meeting social need and the applicant’s wish to provide care to a relative.  These were exceptional circumstances.

·         The annexe was of good design and would not be intrusive.

·         It was noted that circumstances could change and asked what options were available to ensure that the annexe remained tied to the main dwelling.  It was also asked whether permitted development rights could be removed.  The Development Manager commented that a condition could be imposed or a section 106 agreement drawn up to tie the annexe to the dwelling.  A condition could be imposed to remove permitted development rights.

·         The objections to the development were overstated.

·         It could be argued that the scheme represented new development and would set a precedent.

·         There was a view that an engineering solution could be found permitting the provision of an extension to the existing property to which there would be no objection.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the proposal represented a new dwelling.  No needs assessment had been produced providing evidence of social need.  This should be provided in such cases if an application were to be supported on those grounds.  The development would have a visible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 201.

Proposed site for 14 new residential properties to include 5 no.Affordable properties, vehicle turning and landscaping.

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

(Proposed site for 14 new residential properties to include 5 no.Affordable properties, vehicle turning and landscaping.)

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, Mr P Fountain, Vice-Chairman of Lea Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group and Mr M Lowe, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Kendrick, 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 H Bramer, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         On 11 February 2015 the Committee had refused an application for 38 dwellings on the grounds that this would represent overdevelopment.   Planning permission had already been granted for 48 new dwellings in Lea village which consisted of 218 dwellings.  This represented a 25% increase in the size of the village.

·         He was concerned about highway safety.  People using a proposed footpath alongside the A40 to the proposed pedestrian crossing would be very vulnerable, including Children who would have to use the crossing to get to school.   He was also concerned about the safety of the access off the A40 itself.  Traffic speeds exceeded the 30mph limit.  The visibility splay to the north was insufficient.

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the landscape.

·         The footpath by which residents would have to access the village would not be pleasant to use because of its narrow width and proximity to the A40.

·         The proposed site was the worst possible location in the village for new houses.  It was not a sustainable development.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The development for which permission had already been granted in Lea exceeded the growth target over the period of the Core Strategy.  The development was not sustainable. 

·         The Parish Council and Lea Action Group were opposed to the development.  There had also been 57 letters of objection.

·         There were considerable highway safety concerns presented by the A40.  A driver would have great difficulty seeing pedestrians using the proposed pedestrian crossing unless a hedge including trees could be entirely removed.  There was concern too about backing up of traffic towards a blind bend on the A40.

·         The development would have an adverse impact on Castle End, a grade II* listed dwelling.

·         There were landscaping issues.  The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had commented in the report that the retention of the rural landscape adjacent to Castle End Farm would be fundamentally preferred. 

·         The Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply was the only reason the application had been brought forward.

The Development Manager commented that following the examination in public of the Core Strategy the indicative growth target was likely to increase as it would be based upon growth within Lea  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

Proposed one and half storey extension (garden room reinstated after extension).

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

(Proposed one and half storey extension (garden room reinstated after extension.)

The 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.  She reported that Wellington Parish Council had confirmed that it had no objection to the application.

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

He commented that the application was a straightforward application for an extension to a house in keeping with the property.

The Committee noted that the extension was subservient and that materials to be used were in keeping with the property and that there had been no objections to the proposal.

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

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         D09 Details of rooflights

5.         D05 Details of external joinery finishes

6.         D10 Specification of guttering and downpipes

7          I16 Hours of construction

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, 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.

Date of next site inspection – 14 April 2015

Date of next meeting – 15 April 2015