Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, 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 AW Johnson substituted for Councillor CR Butler, Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes for Councillor A Seldon, Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor KS Guthrie and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

None.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Demolition of all existing buildings and hard standings, remediation of the site, including reinstatement or landscaping of the former canal and development of up to 120 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle and pedestrian access and associated works. 

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

(Demolition of all existing buildings and hard standings, remediation of the site, including reinstatement or landscaping of the former canal and development of up to 120 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle and pedestrian access and associated works.)

The Acting Development Manager (ADM) 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 the update contained a response recently received from the Herefordshire & Gloucestershire Canal Trust.  This replaced the Trust’s objection made in 2016 as set out at paragraph 5.4 of the published report.  The updated response stated, amongst other things, that the Trust could only concur with the District Valuer and could only support the developer’s current position with regard to the canal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry, Clerk to Hereford City Council spoke noting the Canal Trust had now indicated its agreement with the proposal which changed the City Council’s response, which had been one of objection, to some degree.  However, there should be no further concessions to the developer.  Mr A Fieldman, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

·        There was concern that significant concessions appeared to be being made to the developer with no benefit to the community.  The scheme no longer provided any affordable housing.  There were no other S106 contributions to be made and the works on the canal were being limited to preparing the canal for future restoration.  It was noted that the canal route would be safeguarded and capped to a depth of 2ft.

·        The ADM commented that the District Valuer did not include in his appraisal the cost the developer paid for the land at the time of purchase, but assessed the value of the land at current prices.  He also commented that whilst the planning permission had included a clawback provision that would have taken effect if the costs of development had proved to be less than estimated, and this could be revisited, the estimated development costs were now such that it was highly unlikely that such a provision would be relevant.

·        It was suggested that the housing mix would be important to ensure smaller units were provided to meet housing needs.  It was also requested that smaller units should be of high quality with affordable running costs.

·        There was a wider issue in that government grants for the remediation of brownfield land had been withdrawn and it was suggested local MPs should be made aware of the importance of government providing financial assistance if the development of brownfield land was to be achieved.

·        The site was an eyesore and needed to be developed.

·        It was important to safeguard the route of the canal in accordance with the Core Strategy.  The restoration of the canal would bring considerable benefits to the City and the County.

·        Reference was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Variation of condition 19 (p140285/0 76 dwellings and a business centre) amend to: the b1 commercial unit and its associated infrastructure as shown on approved plan 0609- 11/d/3.01 shall be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the final occupation of 35 no. Dwellings.

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

(Variation of condition 19 (p140285/0 76 dwellings and a business centre) amend to: the b1 commercial unit and its associated infrastructure as shown on approved plan 0609- 11/d/3.01 shall be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the final occupation of 35 no. Dwellings.)

(Councillor Shaw fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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, Mrs G Churchill, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        It would be reasonable to expect the developer to have agreed arrangements they considered reasonable prior to signing contracts and beginning works, in particular given the hybrid nature of the scheme and the fact that the associated economic development was a key part of granting permission.

·        There was a pattern of developers asking planning committees to relax the terms of agreements they had freely entered into subsequent to commencing development.  This raised a question mark over the value of any such agreement made by a developer.

·        It was unclear why the developer was seeking a variation to condition 19 which they had freely accepted.

·        The developer needed to bring pressure to bear on its development partner.

The Chairman reported that Councillor Seldon, an adjoining ward member had submitted a statement.  In summary this referred to how contentious applications on the site had been and whether the request to vary the condition was reasonable.

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

·        The PPO commented:

·        The planning permission only required the first of the six business units to be constructed and capable of occupation for employment purposes prior to the first occupation of any dwellings.  One had been commenced but not completed.

·        The two elements of the site were now in separate ownership.  He considered the housing developer, who had not been involved at the time of the original application, was doing all it could to seek to encourage the landowner who had retained the business unit element to deliver it.

·        If the application were to be refused the developer, with a partially built housing development on its hands, could either proceed and breach the condition leaving the council to decide whether enforcement action was expedient, or they could mothball the site until the business unit was constructed.

·        There had not been much housing and in particular affordable housing delivered in Bromyard for some time. Refusal would mean completed houses standing empty.

·        The condition only required the business units to be capable of occupation, not actually in operation.  There was a view that the unit that was under development could be completed.

·        As  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Proposed residential development to provide 4 no flats.

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

(Proposed residential development to provide 4 no flats.)

(Councillor Powers fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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 C Powell, an officer of Hereford City Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was no local objection to the principle of development and change of use to residential.  There was an extant permission for a development of 2 semi-detached dwellings with off-street parking. That represented suitable development in contrast to the application for four flats with no off-street parking.

·        There were objections by the City Council and local residents to the new application and an in principle objection from the Transportation Manager.

·        The site was big enough to allow for off-street parking for the new application as it had for the earlier application.

·        The existing parking problems were an impediment to emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles.

·        The proposal would add to highway safety problems and have an adverse effect on the amenity of residents.

·        The location was sustainable in that there was good access to the City by means other than a car residents of the new dwellings may well still own cars.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy MT1 bullet point one as set out at paragraph 6.11 of the report.

·        It could not be assumed, as at paragraph 6.16 of the report, that the likely occupants of the properties would allow for significantly lower levels of off street parking provision as provided for by the car parking standards in the Council’s Highways Design Guide for New Developments as referred to at paragraph 6.15 of the report.

·        The benefit of 2 additional housing units was outweighed by the adverse amenity impact and highway safety issues.

·        There was just as much need for small 2 bed properties as for single bed flats.

·        It was contrary to the principle in Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that the proposal did not meet the required standard in terms of overall design or secure a good standard of amenity for residents.

·        The application would encourage further conversions of single dwellings in the area into multiple occupancy, a process that had already resulted in a cumulative loss of amenity for neighbours.

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

·        The proposal would meet a housing need and represented good use of a brownfield site.

·        A number of concerns were expressed about parking provision.  There was an extant permission for two dwellings with off-street parking.  It was considered that the site could accommodate off street parking for the new proposal.  Instead the proposal would lead to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.