Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie, EL Holton, MD Lloyd-Hayes, AJW Powers, NE Shaw and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor TL Bowes substituted for Councillor AJW Powers, Councillor AW Johnson for Councillor NE Shaw, Councillor PD Newman for Councillor WC Skelton, Councillor J Stone for Councillor KS Guthrie and Councillor D Summers for Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Agenda item 9: 18347 – Twyford Brook Barn, Twyford

Councillor D Summers declared an other declarable interest because he was the adjoining ward member and knew some of the objectors to the application

Councillor SD Williams declared an other declarable interest because he lived in the Parish.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 21 November 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 21 November 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson reported that Edward Thomas, Development Manager was leaving the authority.  On behalf of the Committee he thanked him for his work on the authority’s behalf and wished him well for the future.

Demolition of existing buildings, structures and hardstanding and erection of 45 dwellings (including affordable housing) and drainage attenuation, open space and associated landscaping and infrastructure works (amended layout).

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with additions set out in the committee update.

(Demolition of existing buildings, structures and hardstanding and erection of 45 dwellings (including affordable housing) and drainage attenuation, open space and associated landscaping and infrastructure works (amended layout).

The Development Manager 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 R Page, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs I Sinclair, a local resident, spoke in objection.  The Chairman read out a statement from Mr A Jones, Chairman of Governors of Queen Elizabeth High School Bromyard in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site should be viewed as a windfall site because it was not identified for housing in the Core Strategy, although it had been identified as such in the former Unitary Development Plan.

Benefits

·        The development would provide additional pupils for Queen Elizabeth High School.

·        It would contribute to the housing shortfall arising from problems in developing the strategic housing sites identified for Bromyard.

Disbenefits

·        The proposal was contrary to core strategy policy BY1 which provided for around 5 hectares of employment land to come forward during the plan period.  The site would be suitable for development for employment purposes and would provide one third of that land area.  It was questionable whether the land should be disposed of for housing prior to the preparation of the Bromyard Development Plan.

·        He questioned the sustainability of the site in the absence of employment land provision given that occupiers would have to commute to find employment and would be reliant on private transport.  This would also have an effect on the demographic of people who would seek to live there, with a majority potentially being of retirement age placing additional pressure on the primary care service.

·        He referred to the submission from Nunwell GPs surgery included in the committee update quoting paragraph 2 which stated that the surgery was at capacity and that, “any increase in patient numbers will put our service under considerable strain and possibly affect the quality of care we are able to provide.”

·        He considered overall that the adverse effects would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Without the provision of employment land he considered there was a risk to the health and wellbeing of some Bromyard residents.

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

·        In response to comments about the need for employment land in Bromyard the Development Manager referred to the comments of the Economic Development Manager as set out in the report that the Council had received very few enquiries for employment land and/or units in Bromyard within the last 2 years.  He added that the law required local planning authorities to keep a register of previously developed land that was suitable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Proposed land for residential development and associated work together with public open space and local green space.

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

(Proposed land for residential development and associated work together with public open space and local green space.)

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

The Development Manager 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 M Fitton, of Kington Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Brown, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Turner, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The question was whether the environmental harm outweighed the community benefit.

·        One benefit would be that land by the riverside would be opened up for community use.  There was a recreation area at the other end of the town but a lack of outdoor community space in the part of the town where the application site was.

·        Discussions were taking place as to whether some land could be made available for allotments.  There was a shortfall in provision in Kington.

·        In relation to the representations by Heritage England he observed that the conservation area was a considerable distance from the application site.  It could only be viewed from one small part of the conservation area.

·        There was considerable opposition to the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan and questions as to whether it was deliverable.

·        Part of the site had been included in the 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

·        The houses on Headbrook had no gardens.  The proposal might offer the opportunity to provide them with some garden space.

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

·        The proposal was sustainable development close to an area of open space from which residents would benefit.  It was within walking distance of Kington.  It would provide housing that Kington needed, noting the concerns about the deliverability of the NDP.

·        The access was achievable.

·        There would be benefit if garden space could be provided for the houses currently backing onto the site.

·        The outdoor sports investment plan would provide welcome benefits for young people.

·        It was questioned whether there was an adverse effect on the conservation area.

·        The draft NDP stated that the whole site should be designated as Local Green Space.  The proposed development offered a way of providing affordable green space accessible to the public in a part of the town where there was currently no such provision.

·        The development would link the newer Eardisley Road development to the historic core of the Town.

·        The riverside was an important element of the town contributing to its character.  The site was unimproved meadow land, which was in short supply.

·        There were few letters in support of the application and a considerable number opposing it.  The Town Council, the draft NDP, the CPRE,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Outline planning permission for proposed erection of up to 50 dwellings (including 35% affordable), planting and landscaping, informal open space, vehicular access point from pepper plock ley and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main vehicular site access.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with amended conditions as set out in the Committee update.

(181050 - Outline planning permission for proposed erection of up to 50 dwellings (including 35% affordable), planting and landscaping, informal open space, vehicular access point from Pepper Plock Ley and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of the main vehicular site access.)

The Development Manager 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 B Bloxsome, of Weobley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Best, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He highlighted the concerns about existing traffic congestion which was particularly acute during school traffic in the morning and the afternoon, noting that a neighbouring development was also not yet completed and fully occupied.

·        Four consultees: Historic England, Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) the Parish Council and the Woodland Trust objected to the proposal.

·        The land was historically sensitive and an important asset for the village.

·        A number of late amendments had been made to the scheme.  Even though an outline application the scheme was not sufficiently developed.  The application should be refused, or consideration of it deferred, as the Parish Council had requested,  to allow the Parish Council to consider the latest changes and respond, as it had  and for account to be taken of objections from key consultees.

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

·        The Development Manager clarified with reference to paragraph 4.14 b of the report that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was at Regulation 14 stage and Herefordshire Council had not had sight of the representations received by the Parish Council nor yet received the documentation at the Regulation 15 stage.

·        The site was outside the current and proposed settlement boundary in the NDP.  In response to a view that consideration of the application should be deferred pending progress on the NDP. Officers advised that this would not be appropriate.  There could be no certainty as to when the NDP documents would be submitted at Regulation 15 stage to progress the NDP.  Currently the plan carried limited weight and the application should be determined on that basis.  To defer the application would risk an appeal on the grounds of non-determination and the award of costs against the authority and would be ultra vires.

·        The application was a natural extension of the village. 

·        There was good access to the village by a footpath and to the school.  Improvements to the footpaths would be important to assist with sustainability.

·        Improvements were planned to facilitate school buses turning.  The generation of school traffic was not an uncommon feature.

·        It was suggested that at the reserved matters stage it would be helpful if consideration could be given to additional parking provision, noting the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Outline application for the erection of dwelling and garage. Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.

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

(Outline application for the erection of dwelling and garage. Construction of new vehicular access and associated works.)

The Development Manager 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 S Glover, of Callow and Haywood Parish Council and Mr D Whurr of Lower Bullingham Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Tufnell, a consultant on behalf of ocal residents, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site visit had enabled members to view the relationship of the site to the Grade 2 listed Twyford Brook Barn and Twyford Brook farmhouse.  The proposal was for a single domestic dwelling in the open countryside.

·        The site was some 6-8 feet above the highway.  The topography of the site was steep. This was key to consideration of heritage and landscape impact.   The site was within the property boundary of the Grade 2 listed barn and represented garden land to protect the barn from future development.  The land in front of the barn had been purchased by the owners to prevent development.

·        The application was for outline permission. It should be noted that extensive works would be needed to make the dwelling habitable.  The site was on a steep gradient and the necessary works would result in a change in the site’s character. It would not be in keeping.

·        The drainage comments had been based on the Environment Agency flood maps which showed the site as at low risk. However, a Welsh Water reservoir above the site had created run-off and previously Twyford Barn had been flooded more than once.  Ivy Cottage, below the site, had bunds along the road to protect it.  This property was directly opposite the proposed new entrance to the development site and water would run off that towards Ivy Cottage.

·        The proposal was contrary to the adopted NDP. 

·        The proposal should not be considered for approval without plans showing all the drainage and engineering works that would be required to protect the heritage and landscape of the properties directly affected.

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

·        Concern was expressed about the drainage issues and run off, as outlined by the local ward member.

·        The steepness of the site was a significant issue.

·        Although the Conservation Manager (Built Heritage) had not objected to it, a view was expressed that the proposal would have an impact on the listed buildings affecting their setting and the character of the area.

·        Two Parish Councils objected to the application and there were also 21 letters of objection.

·        There was concern about additional traffic on a minor busy lane.

·        Flooding was the only ground for objection.  There would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.