(Subsequent to the publication of the agenda papers Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes had replaced Councillor JLV Kenyon as a member of the Committee.)

Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, DW Greenow, MD Lloyd-Hayes and SD Williams.

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

Councillor NE Shaw substituted for Councillor CR Butler.

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

Agenda item 8: 172345 and 173946 – Malvern View Country Estate, Woodend Lane, Stanford Bishop.

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had been a member of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council and Bromyard District Chamber of Commerce and Industry at the time when the application had been initiated.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2018 were not available for consideration.

None.

Proposed single storey extensions to North Chapel and to north side of tower to replace existing Plant Room, disabled drop-off parking bay and lift enclosure on north-west side of church and glazing of south porch to create draught lobby. Interior alterations to create multi- use venue. Change of Use from D1 class only to D1, A3 and D2 uses.

The application was refused in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed single storey extensions to north chapel and to north side of tower to replace existing plant room, disabled drop-off parking bay and lift enclosure on north-west side of church and glazing of south porch to create draught lobby. Interior alterations to create multi-use venue. Change of use from d1 class only to D1, A3 and D2 uses.)

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 V Harnett, of Wigmore Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Fran Rhodes, Director, Wigmore Centre Community Interest Company) spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She outlined the Church’s distinguished history. However, the building was now reduced to hosting 4 services a year, weddings and funerals. It had no basic facilities.  If it was not to close and become a ruin, innovative plans such as those being proposed were its only hope of salvation.

·        The proposal would benefit the community and safeguard the building.  It would also attract tourists to Wigmore and neighbouring parishes.  Similar projects elsewhere in the country had proved successful.

·        The church’s central location, however, presented a challenge.  It did not have any parking and there were significant parking and traffic issues as outlined in the report to the Committee.  The proposal relied on the school and businesses to provide parking spaces and volunteers would be needed to marshal events to ensure safe crossing of the A4110, pedestrian safety generally, and prevent people trying to park at the church.  The Committee needed to consider if the parking issues had been sufficiently addressed.

·        Refusal would result in further deterioration of the church and lead to it eventually becoming a ruin.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application considerable interest in, and support for, the aspiration of the proposal was expressed, noting also that it had attracted grant funding.  However, there was serious concern about the lack of parking, safety of pedestrians and the potentially adverse impact on the community.  No satisfactory solution had been found to address this concern.

The Transportation Manager commented that improvements could be made.  However, this would require a package of measures.  The parking issue would need to be solved and finance identified for such measures.  There were no current proposals.

It was also observed that there were objections from a range of national heritage bodies and the Parish Council to which weight had to be given.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that she was keen to safeguard the church but parking issues needed to be addressed and there were differing views on the proposal within the local community.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be refused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Proposed residential development of 3 dwellings.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed residential development of 3 dwellings.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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, Jane Rigler of Orcop Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Ms S Murphy, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs C Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was a current odour problem at Orcop Hill as a result of sewage and the Environmental Health Team was investigating.  There had been numerous complaints over recent years about sewage running into a well and then into the wider water course.

·        The Council’s Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) handbook published in April 2018 stated at paragraph 7.4 that cess pits were not permitted for new developments. Advice had been provided by the Planning Department on 8 May that the guidance in the handbook was not consistent with the adopted policy position that enabled cess pits to be considered in exceptional circumstances. Officers had acknowledged that there was a mismatch that did not reflect well on the Council.  This undermined confidence in the assessment of the application for a new development with three new cess pits on a greenfield site close to the village and had generated considerable local concern.

·        There had also been two opposing drainage reports from Balfour Beatty.  One on 12 March had objected to the use of cess pits.  The other on 2 May approved their use.

·        There was a high water table and cess pits could fail. Paragraph 6.40 of the report suggested that the risk of a cess pit overflowing was the same as a septic tank and package treatment plants.  However, the failure of the proposed cess pits would result in raw sewage flowing downhill contaminating land near existing houses.

·        The report referred to the concerns about unwanted smells and odours.  One of the three cess pits would have to be emptied at least every other week presenting a risk of such smells and odours.

·        The site was directly above the property called Homelea, sloping towards that cottage and the village.  Insufficient consideration had been given to surface water drainage and the risk of foul water run off to lower lying properties.  It was considered that policy SD4 had not been followed in that at no stage had alternative sustainable foul water treatment options been suggested, in particular there was no indication that the use of reed beds had been considered.

·        The assessment of traffic movements was contentious.  The indications were that a 13,500 litre tanker would be the largest that could be used in the site’s location.  Calculations in the application had been based on the use of 45,000 litre tankers.  Clearly this implied significantly more vehicle movements would take place than the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

(172345) Change of use of land for the siting of up to 95 no. caravans, and a change of use, and comprehensive redevelopment of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children's entertainment area; and. 

(173946) Re-development of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children’s entertainment area and petting farm.

Officers authorised to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to the outcome of further consultation with Natural England, Chairman and local ward member.

(172345 - change of use of land for the siting of up to 95 no. Caravans, and a change of use, and comprehensive redevelopment of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children's entertainment area; and,

173946 - re-development of the existing farmyard buildings and associated agricultural barns to provide additional facilities including indoor pool, gymnasium, spa, owners lounge, office area, play barn, children’s entertainment area and petting farm.)

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 confirmed that there were two applications before the Committee, one for planning permission and one for listed building consent.

He added that a response had been received from Natural England too late for inclusion in the Committee update.  Accordingly it was now being recommended that officers be given delegated authority to grant planning permission for application 172345 subject to being able to resolve any material issues raised in Natural England’s response satisfactorily.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Elliott, of Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr M Venables, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr W Sockett, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been 47 letters of objection; the Parish’s population was 113.  This demonstrated the strength of local feeling.

·        She had thought that the dismissal of an appeal for a holiday park immediately adjacent to the site (Tom’s Patch, application no 162809, as referred to at paragraph 3.12 of the report) would have led to a recommendation for refusal.

·        In applying the planning balance she questioned at what point it would be considered that the site was large enough and further growth should be prohibited.  The site was already the largest in the County with 323 caravans, having a history of expansion, and the proposal was to add another 95.  The population of Stanford Bishop Parish was 113 and the Acton Beauchamp Group Parish Area was 342.  She considered the point had been reached when further expansion should refused.

·        There was uncertainty as to the extent of the benefits it was suggested the scheme would deliver. It was stated that the application would generate 8 full time jobs.  The effect on the local economy was, however, hard to quantify.  The proposal seemed designed to ensure its residents did not need to interact with the local economy at all given the nature of the facilities to be provided on site and it could be argued it might therefore even have a negative impact, reducing the interaction currently undertaken by existing caravan owners as well as new owners.  The site was not a locally owned business.  The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

Date of next site inspection – 5 June 2018

Date of next meeting – 6 June 2018