Apologies were received from Councillors J Hardwick, EL Holton, and JA Hyde.

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

Councillor J Stone substituted for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2016.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

A Member commented that an appellant had circulated a letter detailing negotiations between the appellant and the Council about a forthcoming appeal and questioned whether this was appropriate.  The Development Manager commented that the applicant’s actions did not affect the Council’s position or that of third parties and the Inspector would consider the matter of access at the start of the appeal.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Proposed 10 no dwellings with garages.    

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

(Proposed 12 no dwellings with garages.)

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 noted that the Committee had deferred consideration of the application to permit consideration of a single access to the two sites: applications 150052 – land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster and 150053 – land at and west of West Winds, Cholstrey Road, Leominster which were adjoining.  Application 150053 appeared as a separate application on the agenda.   Application 150052 had been revised from an application for 10 dwellings to an application for 12 dwellings.  Application 150053 had been revised from an application for 25 dwellings to an application for 23 dwellings. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, speaking on behalf of Leominster Civic Society and local residents, spoke in objection.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        It was important that there was no access onto Ginhall Lane. However, a common access to the two proposed sites would mean a concentration of more traffic at that point.

·        There had been no discussion with the local ward member or the Town Council on the draft S106 agreement.  She was particularly disappointed that no pedestrian crossing for the Barons Cross estate was included.

·        There were already serious traffic problems at the Bargates to which the developments would add.  Other large developments were also proposed at Barons Cross and the strategic urban extension.

·        The Bargates Area was an air quality management area and pollution levels contravened EU Directives. Pollution was a serious health issue.  Core Strategy (CS) policy L01 stated that new development proposals would be encouraged where (amongst other things) they ensured that they did not exacerbate air pollution levels within the designated air quality management area at Bargates.

·        She noted that it had been promised over two years ago that smart traffic lights would be installed at the Bargates to reduce pollution but this had not yet happened.

·        Policy L01 also stated that new development proposals would be encouraged where (amongst other things) they had demonstrated engagement and consultation with the community including the town/parish council.  The applicants had not properly engaged or consulted.

·        Local residents reported that accidents did happen on Cholstrey Road where the access was proposed, contrary to the official record, and one had in fact happened on Friday 19 February.  The road crossed the brow of a hill and there was a blind spot especially when the sun was low.

·        The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2011 (SHLAA) stated that the site would not be well integrated as it was divorced from the existing residential area by public open space.  The site had significant constraints and there were other more appropriate sites that should be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Proposed 25 dwellings with garages and car spaces.

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

(Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.)

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.

Further to consideration of application 150052, land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster, the previous agenda item, he reiterated that the Committee had deferred consideration of the application to permit consideration of a single access to the two sites: applications 150052 – land off Ginhall Lane, Leominster and 150053 – land at and west of West Winds, Cholstrey Road, Leominster which were adjoining. Application 150052 had been revised from an application for 10 dwellings to an application for 12 dwellings.  Application 150053 had been revised from an application for 25 dwellings to an application for 23 dwellings. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, speaking on behalf of Leominster Civic Society and local residents, spoke in objection.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·         She noted that the comments she had made in relation to the previous application (150052) were also relevant to application 150053. In summary these were:

·         The report did not consider or address the concerns about air pollution on the Bargates.

·         Local residents were concerned about highway safety and believed that a number of accidents had taken place that had not been recorded.

·         Insufficient weight was being given to the retention of the site as greenfield land forming part of a green corridor on the edge of the Town.

·         Core Strategy (CS) Policy LD3 stated that development proposals should identify and retain existing green infrastructure corridors.

·         The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2011 (SHLAA) stated that the site had significant constraints.

·         The Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) wanted the green corridor to be protected.  The report stated that the NDP was a material consideration.  If the application was refused and an appeal lodged the NDP could well have been adopted and be given weight at the appeal.

·         Consideration should be given to the view of the local community that the attractive entrance to the Town should be protected.

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

·         The proposal was contrary to policy LD3 as had been argued in the case of application 150052.

·         The policy was contrary to policy LO1.  The policy stated that in addition to a single strategic urban extension of 1,500 dwellings, the remaining dwellings to be accommodated during the plan period would be “provided through existing commitments, smaller scale non-strategic sites within the existing built up area; those which come forward through the Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan, or sites judged as having development potential which are identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.”  The application site was not in the existing built up area, not in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Proposed extension, dormer loft conversion and replacement of conservatory/lean to with glazed extension.

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

(Proposed extension, dormer loft conversion and replacement of conservatory/lean to with glazed extension.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

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

He noted that the link to the consultation responses in the report had been incorrect and emphasised the importance of ensuring that access was provided to the responses to all applications and that all responses were published to the website.

He had no objection to the proposal itself but sought assurance that as a the extension would be south facing the zinc cladding proposed would not create a nuisance by reflecting sunlight.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application it was requested that provision be made regarding the Party Wall Act.  The Development Manager confirmed that an informative could be added to that effect.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional 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 (drawing nos. 004/1/15, 005/1/15 (Ground and first floor layouts) and 005/1/15 (Proposed Elevations)

3.         C01 - Samples of external materials

4.         I16 - Restriction of hours during 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. 

2          I48 Party Wall Act

Date of next site inspection – 15 March 2016

Date of next meeting – 16 March 2016