Apologies were received from Councillors J Hardwick and A Seldon.

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

Councillor PJ McCaull substituted for Councillor J Hardwick and Councillor D Summers for Councillor A Seldon.

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

Agenda item 7:  142349 – Land between Gosmore Road and the Seven Stars Public House, Gosmore Road, Clehonger

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the representative of the Parish Council who was speaking on behalf of the Parish Council at the meeting.

Agenda item 9: 150789 – Land at Tenbury Road, Brimfield

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the applicant’s agent.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015 be approved as a correct record, subject to amending Minute number  40 – declarations of interest to record the declaration of  a non-pecuniary interest made at the meeting by Councillor EJ Swinglehurst for agenda item 11 as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee, and signed by the Chairman as amended.

There were no announcements.

Residential development of up to 80 houses.

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

(Residential development of up to 80 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms C Protherough of Clehonger Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr Catley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        His initial view had been that the proposal might be acceptable.  However, he supported the Parish Council’s grounds for opposing the proposal.

·        He expressed concerns about traffic speeds and the limited parking by the school.

·        The large scale of the development would have an adverse impact on the quality of life in the village.

·        The development would also adversely affect travel to Hereford along the Belmont road.

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

·        Clehonger had experienced problems with the sewerage drainage for a number of years and it was questioned whether a financial contribution from one developer would be sufficient to solve these problems.  In addition a new drainage system would have to be installed before the development could be occupied.  The application was therefore premature and seeking to take advantage of the fact that the Core Strategy was yet to be adopted.

·        The highway infrastructure was unsatisfactory.  Visibility on exiting the site was impeded by the Seven Stars Public House.  People travelling to work on the Belmont Road into Hereford experienced significant delays.  The road did not have the capacity to accommodate additional vehicles.

·        Information was sought on the accident record in the vicinity of the development but this was not to hand.

·        The Development Manager clarified that the Neighbourhood Plan had not reached Regulation 14 stage. The density of the development was 28 per hectare; the Unitary Development Plan policy was that a density of 30-50 was acceptable.  The Committee had to accept the advice that a solution to the provision of foul water drainage had been found.  Traffic speeds were the principal concern.  It was proposed to move the 30mph speed limit to the east and this action together with traffic calming measures should address this concern. Acceptable visibility splays could be provided within a 30mph limit.   It was also proposed to extend the footpath to the public house and provide a crossing facility to the bus stop.

·        There appeared to be an inconsistency in that the report referred to Clehonger as a main village with an 18% indicative growth target in the Core Strategy over the plan period.  The report then went on to talk about a residual minimum housing requirement over the lifetime of the Core Strategy.  It was understood that the Inspector had required the wording in the Core Strategy to be changed to refer to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Proposed residential development of 20 dwellings including 7 affordable houses.

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

(Proposed residential development of 20 dwellings including 7 affordable houses.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The development, whilst not welcomed locally, was broadly accepted.  It would help to support local facilities.

·        Traffic along the A4103 often exceeded the speed limit.  Any measures to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety and amenity for residents would be welcome.  She requested that the Committee confirmed that the access and road conditions were adequate to permit the development.

·        The hedge to the west of the development protected the village and the landscape. She requested that this should be retained in perpetuity.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the application.

·        The visibility splays were good.  It was, however, requested that the Council investigate the feasibility of a 30mph speed limit on the relevant stretch of road.

·        It was noted that the proposed traffic measures would help to mitigate the way in which the A4103 severed development either side of the road and improve access to amenities.  The Development Manager highlighted the sustainable transport measures provided for in the S106 agreement.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the density of the development was 18 dwellings per hectare.  This was considered acceptable having regard to the character of the area.  The hedgerow on the western boundary and mature trees bounding the site would be retained following a modification of the original submission.

·        The proposed mix of design was welcomed.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that any measures to control the traffic and make it easier to cross the A4103 would benefit new and existing residents.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)       

2.         B01 Development in accordance with approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         H02 Single access – footway

5.         H03 Visibility splays

6.         H06 Vehicular access construction

7.         H11 Parking – estate development (more than one house)

8.         H18 On site roads – submission of details

9.         H20 Road completion

10.       H21 Wheel washing

11.       H27 Parking for site operatives

12.       H29 Covered and secure cycle parking provision

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

14.       G09 Details of boundary treatments

15.       G10 Landscaping scheme

16.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

17.       The recommendations set out in Section 5 of the ecologist’s report from Swift Ecology dated January 2015 should be followed in relation to species mitigation and habitat enhancement.  Prior to commencement of the development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Proposed residential development comprising 15 open market houses and 5 affordable houses together with estate road, allotments with car parking and children’s play area.

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

(Proposed residential development comprising 15 open market houses and 5 affordable houses together with estate road, allotments with car parking and children’s play area.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Brick, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Burton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development fulfilled the objectives within the core strategy.  It was the preferred site for development within the Neighbourhood Plan.

·        There were no objections from the Statutory Consultees.

·        The provision of affordable housing was welcome.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal but had expressed concern about traffic speeds along Tenbury Road, which was used as a cut through between the A49 and A456.  He supported the extension of the 30mph speed limit and traffic calming measures.

·        He noted that the Council’s ecologist had objected to the proposal and the loss of traditional orchards was a matter of regret.  He hoped that condition 15 would be implemented and that new orchard trees would be planted in the open space in the development to the benefit of the landscape.

·        He invited the Committee to have regard to the officer’s summary and conclusions at paragraphs 6.33 – 6.37 of the report.  He noted that the S106 agreement contained measures relating to traffic management and the site access.

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

·        Section 4 of the S106 agreement providing for the maintenance of the public open space by a management company was not satisfactory.

·        The density of the development was satisfactory.

·        Traffic measures were needed to slow down the traffic, noting that Tenbury Road, was used as a cut through between the A49 and A456.

·        The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the sustainable transport measures contained in the S106 agreement which included the provision of a 30mph speed limit.  He noted that these could also include a speed indicator device if that was considered appropriate or, for example, a gateway feature.  Measures would be discussed with the local ward member and the Parish Council.  He confirmed that it had not proved feasible to pursue the suggestion of the Conservation Manager (Landscapes) regarding an alternative access to the site because the land required to achieve it was not in the applicant’s ownership.

·        The Parish Council should be congratulated on the work it had done on the Neighbourhood Plan.  The prioritisation of preferred sites for development assisted the Committee.

·        Dissatisfaction was expressed about the removal of several orchard trees on the site that had taken place.  It was imperative there was mitigation and replacement planting.

·        The Parish Council had requested that the proposed 4-bedroom dwellings be replaced with bungalows.  The Neighbourhood Plan did not recommend dwellings with more than three bedrooms.  The Development Manager confirmed that the application before the Committee was a full application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Site for proposed residential development for 30 houses.

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

(Site for proposed residential development for 30 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 highlighted that determination of the application had been deferred by the Committee on 5 August 2015.  In response to the Committee’s concern that the application represented overdevelopment the applicant had now proposed a development of up 30 houses rather than the 35 originally proposed.  This represented a development of 24 dwellings per hectare reduced from 27 per hectare.  This was considered an acceptable density for the site, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, because of the proposed provision of green open space.  The application remained an outline application.  The indicative layout contained with the original application had been withdrawn and the applicant had submitted a revised plan showing only the means of access.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Pendleton of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Wheeler, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Local support remained for the retention of the area as public open space.

·        The absence of an indicative layout meant that it was unclear where dwellings would now be situated.  There was no clarity as to where the proposed green space would be provided.

·        He questioned the accuracy of the traffic survey by Balfour Beatty Living Places of the use of the Bargates suggesting that it did not take account of traffic exiting Westfield Court.

·        It appeared that there was to be a single lane access onto the site.  This was dangerous. There were already parking problems in the area because of dwellings having a lack of parking spaces and parking on the roadside.  There was a concern about access for emergency vehicles. 

·        He was not wholly opposed to development on the site but considered there were still too many issues that remained outstanding.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee that the application was an outline application and the Committee therefore had to consider the principle of development and the suitability of the access, which he confirmed was a two way access.  If the application were approved detailed proposals would be subject to consultation.  He noted that condition 6 in the recommendation in the report needed to be amended to limit the development to 30 dwellings.

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

·        The density of development had been reduced.

·        The withdrawal of the indicative layout made it hard to assess the impact on residents.  Whilst local residents accepted the principle of development this was subject to the provision of green open space as part of any scheme.

·        The report’s comments on highway matters were not accepted.  The area was served by a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.