Apologies were received from Councillors TM James and AJW Powers.

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

None.

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

Agenda item 8:  180557 – Wynyats, Chase Road, Ross-on Wye

Councillors PGH Cutter and J Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 14 March 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 14 March 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Williams to the Committee, replacing Councillor Swinglehurst.

He also congratulated Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, on reaching 40 years service to Herefordshire and thanked him for his contribution.

Proposed erection of eight residential dwellings (c3) along with associated garages, parking, roads, highways access and associated infrastructure.

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

(Proposed erection of eight residential dwellings (C3) along with associated garages, parking, roads, highways access and associated infrastructure.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Hooper, of Garway Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr L Watson, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, 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:

·        The application had attracted a high level of public comment.  Some 25% of local residents had objected to the proposal, as had the Parish Council.

·        The Parish Council was developing a neighbourhood development plan.  Approval of the application would undermine confidence in that process.

·        The applicant had sought pre-application advice from the Council and had modified the proposal to seek to make it more palatable, however, it was still not acceptable to the local community.

·        The size and scale of the development was inappropriate.

·        The location was a concern.  Access was off a single track unclassified road that struggled to cope with existing levels of traffic.  The school was some 800m away with no access path meaning that children would be driven there.

·        It was questioned whether the development was sustainable with drainage being one concern.

·        The need for additional homes to support the sustainability of the village was recognised.  However, it was considered that the proposed location was not suitable.  

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

·        In reply to questions the Lead Development Manager confirmed that the housing land supply was at 4.54 years. The Core Strategy required a minimum of 25 dwellings to be delivered at Garway.  Eight dwellings had been committed leaving a minimum of a further 17 dwellings to be developed.

He also clarified the relationship between condition 16 and informative 2 as set out in the report, confirming that full details of the proposed drainage scheme would have to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of any development.

·        In response to concern about the width of the access road, the additional traffic that would be generated, and potential conflict with agricultural vehicles, the Transportation Manager commented that the accesses to the development would be of a standard road construction enabling them to be classed as passing places. Notwithstanding the narrowness of the road, the additional traffic that the development would be expected to generate would not be classed as an intensification of use.

·        In the absence of a neighbourhood development plan weight had to be given to the lack of a five year housing land supply.  The Core Strategy provided for development in Garway.

·        The site was close to the rest of the village.  The design of the development was in keeping with existing dwellings in Garway. The site layout was acceptable and the provision of semi-detached dwellings was a welcome aspect.

·        There were two accesses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.

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

(Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Sawyers of Kingsland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Hicks, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Highfield Close was of a consistent and harmonious design with which the proposal would be at odds.

·        It seemed a shame to demolish a satisfactory dwelling.  The demolition work would create noise and disruption.

·        The principle of development on the site was clearly established by the presence of the existing bungalow.  It was acknowledged that the design of the proposed house had regard to environmental considerations.  However, there was concern about the modern and startling nature of the design and the colours.  The design included aluminium and wooden windows and a metal roof.

·        The proposal did not reflect the main buildings in the conservation area and did not preserve or enhance that area.  The application should be refused.

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

·        Several members expressed the view that the design was incongruous and there was concern too about the scale and mass of the development which was out of character in that location in a prominent position on the corner.  It did not preserve and enhance the conservation area.

·        Some other members considered the proposal did have merit and noted the comments of the Building Conservation Officer who had no objection.

The Lead Development Manager commented that a number of other schemes of modern design in established settings had been approved.  Officers considered the proposal was satisfactory.  He highlighted the comments of the Building Conservation Officer at paragraph 4.3 of the report that the proposal would be more sensitive to the elements that enhance the conservation area than the dwelling it was proposed to replace and cautioned against refusing the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the design was incongruous and inappropriate in that location.

A motion proposed by Councillor Seldon and seconded by Councillor Williams that the application be refused was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote there having been 5 votes in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

Councillor Cutter proposed and Councillor Guthrie seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 5 votes in favour, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         A01 - Time Limit for Commencement (Full Permission)

2.         B02 - Development in Accordance with Approved Plans and Materials

3.         I16 - Restriction of Hours during Construction

4.         F08 - No Conversion of Garage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

Demolition of existing shed & kitchen area. new single storey kitchen and dining area. new stair access and bedroom/en suite formed in roof space.

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

(Demolition of existing shed & kitchen area. New single storey kitchen and dining area. New stair access and bedroom/en suite formed in roof space.)

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Cutter, spoke on the application.  He indicated his support for the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 11 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         A01 – Time Limit for Commencement

2.         B02 – Development in Accordance with Approved Plans and Materials

3.         C04  – Matching Brickwork

4.         D09 – Details of Rooflights

INFORMATIVES:

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.

Date of next site inspection – 24 April 2018

Date of next meeting – 25 April 2018