Apologies were received from Councillors MAF Hubbard, RI Matthews 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 EPJ Harvey attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor MAF Hubbard, Councillor NP Nenadich for Councillor DB Wilcox and Councillor GA Vaughn-Powell for Councillor RI Matthews.

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

AGENDA ITEM 5: P14091O/O LAND AT MILL STREET, LEOMINSTER

Councillor AN Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of Network Rail.

AGENDA ITEM 7: P141024/F LAND AT FLAG STATION, MANSELL LACY

Councillor AJM Blackshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant’s father through his role as Ward Councillor.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest beacause he knew the applicants, and some of the objectors and supporters.

The Chairman explained the procedure to be used for determining the applications that were the subject of agenda items 5 and 6: land at Mill Street, Leominster, and land at Southern Avenue Leominster.

He explained that, to ensure fair consideration, each application would be debated in turn but no motions would be moved until the conclusion of both debates.  A vote would then be taken on the Mill Street application followed by a vote on the Southern Avenue application.

Outline application for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and development of the site to provide a retail store (Use Class A1) and associated works and improvements including access.  Amended Plans.

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

(Outline application for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and development of the site to provide a retail store (use class a1) and associated works and improvements including access. Amended plans.)

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 commented that there were two applications before the Committee for convenience goods stores in Leominster.  Similar proposals had been refused by the Committee on 8 January 2014.   The Town Centres Study update demonstrated that Leominster had capacity for additional convenience goods floor space and this had been confirmed by Deloitte’s independent advice on the retail impact assessment submitted by the applicant. 

The Committee needed to consider the respective merits of each application.  It was not bound to find in favour of one application or the other.

The Committee was advised to have regard to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework which provided that where an application failed to satisfy the sequential test or was likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused.

He highlighted proposed changes to the conditions in the recommendation as set out in the update that had been circulated to the Committee.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of the Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection.  Mr S Hoare, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors FM Norman and Brig P Jones, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Norman commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Committee had had strong grounds for refusing the previous application.  The new application was for a smaller development and no longer contained a petrol station.  The grounds for refusal otherwise remained.

·         Concerns about the risk of flooding remained high.  The flood risk assessment accompanying the application was desk based.  There had been no survey and local knowledge had not been sought.  A photograph showing the site under water in Christmas 2012, a state in which it had remained for 2 weeks, had not been made available to the Committee.  The Flood Risk Assessment report was therefore inaccurate in stating that there was no evidence of surface water on the site.  She noted that it was proposed that the floor level of the store was to be elevated to prevent flooding of the store itself. The flood risk assessment also focused on the risk of fluvial flooding and did not take account of flash flooding and the resulting surface water.  It also did not consider what might happen if the flood risk increased.

·         The access to the site remained problematic.  Network rail had initially responded that an access was not feasible unless a bridge was constructed.  The rail crossing would be closed for approximately 17 minutes every  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Site for Class A1 Foodstore with petrol filling station.

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

(Site for class a1 foodstore with petrol filling station.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs V Mifflin, representing Friends of Leominster/Leominster Town Centre Action Group spoke in objection.  Mr K Nutter, 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 local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Bartlett commented on a number of issues including:

·         The site had no connectivity with the Town and was unsustainable, increasing reliance on car use.

·         The proposal entailed the loss of employment land.  It would set a precedent, changing the site from an industrial estate to a retail park.  It would mean the loss of three small businesses providing 30 jobs paying higher wages than those which would be paid by the supermarket.

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the town centre.  The Deloitte report described the town centre as vulnerable.  It estimated the development would take £5m from the centre, £3m of which would be from small shops which operated on small margins.

·         The Aldi and Co-op supermarkets in the town centre were crucial in generating linked trips.

·         Shop closures would lead to decline putting at risk the listed buildings in the centre.  Policies designed to protect these buildings should be upheld.  Policy S7 and the National Planning Policy Framework supported action to safeguard the Leominster conservation area.

·         The Town had a significant tourist trade which would be adversely affected if the centre went into decline. 

·         The Town had suffered decline in the 1990s when the first out of town supermarket had been established.  The impact of the proposed development on retail trade in the town centre was of the greatest concern.

Councillor McCaull commented on a number of issues including:

·         The industrial estate was really a business park and already included several retail uses. 

·         The supermarket would provide 200 jobs.  Leominster needed part time jobs.

·         The site did have footpath access to the Town centre.

·         Vehicle access to the site was good and it was easily reached by residents from Ludlow to Hereford via the A49.

·         The applicant had offered to fund a bus service from the site to the Town for years.

·         The site was not at risk of flooding.

·         The Section 106 agreement would bring benefits.  However, if the application were approved he requested that the Town Council be consulted on priorities for S106 funding.

·         He requested that the Committee support the proposal.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The development would bring £9m to the Town through the S106 agreement with a further £1m in community benefits.

·         The development would provide retail choice and the proposed bus service provided the opportunity for shoppers to visit the town centre making linked trips.

·         Out of town stores accessible by cars were necessary.

·         It was to be hoped that more diverse shops would emerge in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Proposed erection of 4 nos. poultry buildings, associated feed bins, hard-standings and access road. 

The Committee deferred consideration of this application to its next meeting.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application to its next meeting because it was not practical to proceed in the unavoidable absence of the officer due to present the report on the application.

Date of next site inspection – 7 October 2014

Date of next meeting – 8 October 2014