The Committee observed a minute’s silence in memory of the victims of the Grenfell tower fire.

Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, A Seldon and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor D Summers substituted for Councillor A Seldon and Councillor SD Williams for WC Skelton.

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

Agenda item 7: 171040 – Wymm House, Sutton St Nicholas

Councillor BA Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest as a resident of the Parish.

Agenda item 8: 163673 – The Pavilion Tennis Club, Ledbury

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Council representative on the Malvern Hills AONB Joint Committee and because her mother lived in the vicinity.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 May 2017.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 May 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were none.

Proposed erection of one dwelling.

The application was refused in accordance with the first two grounds set out in the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed erection of one dwelling.)

The Senior 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.

She highlighted that, for the reasons explained in the update, only the first two grounds for refusal set out in the recommendation in the report remained valid.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Snead, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She outlined the family history and connection to the area and family circumstances. The proposal was for a single storey dwelling on land owned by the applicant to enable her to support her parents.

·        It was a redevelopment of the existing site.

·        The location was sustainable being 1.4 miles from Sutton St Nicholas Primary School, the village and public house, 1.5 miles from Marden village, public house and shops and 0.3 miles from the nearest public house with a bus stop five minutes walk away.  The site was amongst a cluster of dwellings, on a bus route, close to both villages and not isolated.

·        She referred to Marden Parish Council’s support for the application as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·        She noted that the policy was in conflict with the Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan. However, the report did acknowledge that in exceptional cases personal circumstances could be afforded some weight as a material planning consideration.  She elaborated on the family circumstances stating that in her view this was an exceptional case and the application should be approved permitting the family to remain in their local community.

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

·        It was remarked that the Committee had recently received a number of such applications where it was asked to give weight to personal circumstances even though the application was contrary to policy.  It was important that the Committee applied policy consistently and did not give weight to personal circumstances, which were not a material consideration, to avoid an increasing number of such applications.

·        The Acting Development Manager clarified that the proposal was for a new dwelling, not a conversion of an existing dwelling, and did not therefore qualify as an exception under policy RA3 criterion 4.

·        Although the Policy did not comply with the Neighbourhood Development Plan the Parish Council supported the proposal.  There was also support in the local community.

·        The legal adviser commented that planning applications related to the current and future use of land.  The Committee was required to determine the application having regard to the Core Strategy, Neighbourhood Development Plan and any other material consideration including the public interest. Personal circumstances were very rarely a material consideration.  Incorrectly giving weight to personal circumstances rendered a decision open to challenge.

·        It was asked whether the application would be worthy of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposed erection of 15m monopole to support 2no. Antennas and 1no. Dish, floodlights, together with the installation of 5no. Equipment cabinets and erection of 1no, 10m floodlight structure with 2no. New floodlights.

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

(Proposed erection of 15m monopole to support 2no. Antennas and 1no. Dish, floodlights, together with the installation of 5no. Equipment cabinets and erection of 1no, 10m floodlight structure with 2no. New floodlights.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He clarified that the reason the application required planning permission was because the site was just within the Malvern Hills AONB.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Hadley, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr R Morison, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

•           The present and future technological needs of Ledbury needed to be met.

•           Local residents had a number of legitimate concerns as reflected in the report.. 

•           Ledbury Town Council had objected to the proposal.

•           Paragraphs 42 and 46 of the National Planning Policy Framework supported the need for a high quality communications infrastructure.

•           Conditions would govern the use of floodlighting.

•           Radiation emissions were controlled by law.

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

•           It was surprising that the application was a combined one for floodlighting and a monopole.

•           It appeared that the current conditions governing the floodlighting were being breached.  Future enforcement of conditions would be important. It was asked if the relevant condition could be amended to require the floodlights to be turned off earlier than proposed. The Acting Development Manager replied that the Committee did not have the evidence to support such a change and the council had previously approved an extension to the shut off time of the existing lights to the time proposed in the report for the new lights.

•           It was questioned whether any alternative sites for the monopole had been considered and if so on what grounds they had been discounted noting that the application site was within the AONB.

•           It was important that the colouring of the mast was sympathetic.

•           The proposals to protect trees at the site were important.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Planning Statement accompanying the application explained the consideration the applicant had given to alternative sites and outlined the sites that had been considered.  He added that there would be no reduction to the crown of the existing trees.  The importance of the colour of the monopole was recognised.  He also confirmed the distance from the monopole to the nearest dwellings.  The proposed floodlighting would be of good standard and light spillage would be controlled.

The Acting Development Manager commented that in accordance with NPPF guidance, Members were not entitled to take impacts on public health into account provided the relevant ICNIRP certification had been received.  He also highlighted the comments of the AONB officer at paragraph 4.1 of the report that the visual effect of the development would not be major and the response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Change of use of Rosemore Grange, from a residential dwelling with holiday accommodation, to exclusive private hire for holiday accommodation, private celebrations and events.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application.

(Change of use of Rosemore Grange, from a residential dwelling with holiday accommodation, to exclusive private hire for holiday accommodation, private celebrations and events.)

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 N Knight of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Dr N Brookes, 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 NE Shaw, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

•           Applications had to be determined having regard to planning policies.  The key issues were residential amenity and privacy.  Whitbourne Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy LU4 stated: hsousing or development proposals should seek to respect the amenity and privacy of any adjoining properties.  Core Strategy policy RA6 also stated that planning applications which are submitted in order to diversify the rural economy will be permitted where they do not cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of design and mass, noise and dust, lighting and smell.  Policy SD1 stated that development proposals should safeguard residential amenity for existing and proposed residents.

•           Rosemore Grange was in an isolated rural location in the open countryside.  There were two listed properties nearby.

•           In considering the impact of a development on amenity regard could be had to the context, so what might not be viewed as having an impact on amenity in a town might well be thought to have an impact on amenity in a hamlet in the open countryside.

•           There had been protracted debate as to whether planning permission was required for the way in which Rosemore Grange was being used.  This had led, finally, to the retrospective application being brought forward.

•           Neighbours had suffered considerable nuisance from the use of Rosemore Grange.  He was concerned that conditions to protect amenity would be difficult to enforce given the property’s location.  There were examples of legal action being taken to protect amenity and he drew attention to the provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee began to discuss the application but a Member suggested that the proposed recommendation and conditions did not appear to address appropriately all the aspects that the application requested and sought clarification.  Officers agreed that there was an anomaly and suggested that a further report to the Committee would be the best way to proceed.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred.