None.

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

None.

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

Agenda Item 12: 150379 Land opposite Whitchurch Primary School, Whitchurch, Ross-on-Wye Herefordshire.

Councillor PGH Cutter 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.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 15 April 2015.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings held on 15 April 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Proposed single storey 3 classroom extension with associated group rooms and staff area, a new multi-use games area and perimeter fencing is proposed. Also the enclosure of an existing external fire escape stair.

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

(Proposed single storey 3 classroom extension with associated group rooms and staff area, a new multi-use games area and perimeter fencing is proposed. Also the enclosure of an existing external fire escape stair.)

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 M Addison, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been only one objection and she acknowledged the objector’s concern.  However, she considered that the reopening of the pedestrian gate was appropriate and would not have the adverse consequences the objector feared.  She noted there were several approach roads affording the opportunity to walk to the school and considered the proposal to be sustainable.

·        She highlighted the officer’s conclusion at paragraph 7.1 of the report.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the principal concern was highway safety, whether some measures could be taken to ensure this and whether use of the pedestrian gate on Broadlands lane would be monitored.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the proposed addition of a condition requiring a travel plan, as referred to in the committee update, would require monitoring to take place and if that identified a need for highway safety measures these could then be considered.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated her support for the application.

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.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

4.         H27 Parking for site operatives

5.         H29 Secure covered cycle parking provision

6.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

7.         G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

8.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

9.         G10 Landscaping scheme

10.       G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

11        H30 Travel 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

4.         HN01 Mud on highway

5.         HN05 Works within the highway

Outline application for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping with all other matters reserved, except access.

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

(Outline application for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping with all other matters reserved, except access.)

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 explained that the application was a resubmission of an application refused by the Committee on 4 March 2015 with no material change.  He referred to the officer comments in the update to the report that it was a judgment for a local planning authority to make as to whether it decided to decline an application.  There was no suggestion that an application was not valid if it was not materially different from one which had been previously refused.

He added that officers remained concerned that the council was not meeting its five year housing land supply and it was primarily for this reason that the application had been brought before the Committee for its consideration.  The proposed modifications to the Core Strategy were also pertinent to the re-submitted application as they acknowledged the fact that there was likely to be a need to find further sites beyond strategic allocations. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in objection to the application as did Mrs G Churchill of Avenbury Parish Council.  Mr T Watton spoke on behalf of Bovis Homes and Mosaic Estates in objection.  Mr L Lane, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward members, Councillors PM Morgan and A Seldon, spoke on the application.

Councillor Morgan made the following principal comments:

·        Avenbury was a rural parish and had no housing allocation proposed within the Core Strategy.  It should not have to accommodate the urban development proposed.

·        The Conservation Manager (Landscape) objected to the proposal.

·        The development was a significant one in the context of Bromyard and would be detrimental to future plans for the Town.  The application was premature.

·        The resubmitted application was identical to the one rejected by the Committee in March 2015.  The grounds on which the Committee had rejected the application as set out at paragraph 3.1 of the report remained valid. 

Councillor Seldon made the following principal comments:

·        He expressed his dissatisfaction that the application had not been refused by officers under delegated powers given that the application was identical to that refused by the Committee in March 2015.

·        There was no housing land supply shortage in Bromyard.  Land identified in the north west quadrant of the area could accommodate up to 600 houses and would represent organic growth in the Town’s preferred location.

·        The grounds on which the Committee had rejected the application as set out at paragraph 3.1 of the report remained valid.

·        In relation to the adverse effect on the landscape, a number of recent decisions by Planning Inspectors following appeals had stated that land did not have to have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposed 3 no. Houses (4 bed).

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

(Proposed 3 no houses (4 bed).

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 Avery of Lyonshall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr K Hern, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had discussed the proposal with the local community and there was considerable local support for it. 

·        He contrasted the development with the large scale developments that had been approved in other villages without local support.  The developer could, for example, have submitted an application for some 40 standard houses but had chosen not to do so.

·        The proposed houses were large.  However, he observed that in May 2014 the Committee had approved a single very large dwelling at Eardisland in what were far less favourable planning circumstances.

·        He questioned the criticism in the report of the proposed design and considered the development was in keeping with the village.

·        The development was sustainable.

·        He outlined a number of paragraphs within the National Planning Policy Framework and a range of policies that could be advanced in support of the application.

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

·        The applicant was commended on the consultation undertaken with the local community. 

·        The development commanded local support including that of the Parish Council and was a good example of a village deciding how it should grow and survive.

·        The developer had offered to provide community benefits.  The hope was expressed that these might be increased given the profit the Scheme would generate.

·        The Committee had granted permission for many developments adjoining a settlement boundary.

·        The development was sustainable.

·        Development on the edge of a settlement could have less impact on the amenity of existing residents than infill development.

·        The hope was expressed that the grassed area between the village and the development could be retained.

·        The area was not a conservation area.  Quality of design was a subjective matter.   It was questioned whether the design was inappropriate, and failed to reflect the surrounding local built character and environment as the report suggested.  The Development Manager commented on the reasoning behind his view expressed in the report.

·        It was noted that a development of 10 or more houses would have necessitated a S106 agreement guaranteeing community benefit.

·        It was suggested that a better visibility splay to the west of the access was required.

·        Some Members considered that the development was too far removed from the heart of the village.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He commented that the development was less than 500m from the pub.  Affordable housing had already been provided within the village.  He reiterated that the development was sustainable and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposed 6 no. Houses (3 no. 4 bed, 2 no. 3 bed and 1 no. 2 bed).

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

(Proposed 6 no houses (3 no 4 bed, 2 no 3 bed and 1 no 2 bed.)

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 Avery of Lyonshall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr K Hern, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application.

·        He observed that most of the principles discussed in relation to the previous application on the agenda (143830) applied equally to this application. 

·        He added that the site was one of the sites most favoured by the community for development with less impact on the landscape and the residential area than the previous application and the scheme comprised houses of a range of sizes.  The application represented sustainable development and was supported by the range of policies to which he had referred in the previous application.

·        No members objected to this application on the grounds that it was too removed from the settlement. 

·        There was a consensus that the arguments in favour of the previous application were relevant to this site, noting also that the scheme proposed a range of house sizes .

·        An observation was made that a footpath diversion may be required to preserve a Public Right of Way.

·        In response to a question the Development Manager commented that it was not possible to require garages to be built so invoking the need for S106 contributions because of the development’s increased size..

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comment.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary after consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member on the grounds that the development was sustainable.

(The meeting adjourned between 12.52-12.57)

Variation of condition to convert cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage. Remove condition 4. 

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

(Variation of condition to convert cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage.  Remove condition 4.)

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 of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr P Wood, owner of the Olde Rectory, spoke in objection.  Mrs G Poultney, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor NE Shaw, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        Nothing on site had changed since the Committee had rejected the previous application.  The Committee had previously concluded that there would be inadequate private external space and that the proposed dwelling would adversely affect the privacy and amenity of those occupying the Olde Rectory.

·        He expressed concern that no site visit has been offered to new members of the Committee; because the issues of privacy and amenity were subjective matters.

·        He questioned some of the assumptions made in the report.

·        The amenity area for the Fodder Store, currently enclosed by a wooden open lattice screen, was in the front of the property and open to the view of the neighbouring properties and their jointly used access. This was not private.  The report only stated that the size of the area was commensurate with the property.  He observed that the area did not appear on any plans.

·        He drew attention to the presence of an open lattice trellis shielding the aspect of the medieval wall of the fodder store and a large green oil tank occupying part of the area which he considered the committee might object to, being so close to an historical structure. He considered these matters were material, incongruent with the setting and should in themselves be reasons for refusal under policy H14, “ in respect of the character and appearance of its location”.

·        Page 101of the agenda papers listed items that must be considered in the change of use of a listed building.  Of these the second point was key: “The proposed use is compatible with the preservation of the existing building, its features and setting and where relevant those of any immediately adjacent listed buildings”.  The effect of the change of use on the setting was material, contrary to the report.

·        In respect of privacy, both windows from the lounge and the bedroom of the Fodder Store overlooked the front garden of the Olde Rectory, and the bathroom window overlooked the more private rear garden.  The Olde Rectory occupants therefore suffered a loss of privacy from these outlooks – presumably enough to justify refusal if this was a fresh application for a new dwelling, possibly of less weight in considering a change of use. 

·        The change of use would increase the loss of privacy.  A property limited to holiday accommodation was likely to be significantly less intrusive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Proposed erection of three dwellings and construction of associated works.

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

(Proposed erection of three dwellings and construction of 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 Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PD Newman, spoke on the application.

He commented that whilst the Parish Council had initially had some concerns about the proposal these had now been overcome and the Parish Council had no objections..  He supported their view.  Whilst technically outside the defined settlement boundary the development felt connected to the village.

In discussion of the application an observation was made on the importance of consistency in language used in reports and the interpretation and wording of policies. The reference to the site being “very close to the defined settlement boundary” and being in a “relatively sustainable location.”, and the reference to design being of a high standard were highlighted.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comment.

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

1.         The development shall not commence until approval of the following reserved matter has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority:-

• Appearance in the form of a written schedule and samples of all external materials.

            An application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

            Reason: No such details have been submitted and in accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans:-

• Application Site Plan (Scale 1:1250) received 6 February 2015

• Site Plan & Entrance Detail - Drawing number 772.03 Rev. C (Scale 1:500) received 6 May  2015

• Landscaping Plan – Drawing number 2015/02/1B (Scale 1:500) and accompanying Landscape Management Plan received 14 April 2014

• Dwelling 1 (4 bedroomed detached)  - Drawing number 772.04 (Scale 1:100) received 6 February 2015

• Dwelling 2 (2 x 3 bedroomed semi-detached) - Drawing number 772.05 (Scale 1:100) received 6 February 2015 and

• Street Elevation – Proposed – Drawing number 772.06 (Scale 1:100) received 6 February 2015

            except where stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

            Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development in accordance with Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted the following matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval:-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Date of next site inspection – 14 July 2015

Date of next meeting – 15 July 2015