Apologies were received from Councillors Graham Andrews, Polly Andrews, Seldon and Watson.

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

Councillor Bowen substituted for Councillor Graham Andrews, Councillor Summers for Councillor Seldon, Councillor Tillett for Councillor Polly Andrews, and Councillor Wilding for Councillor Watson.

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.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 11 December 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 11 December 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The legal adviser reminded the committee of the provision in the Planning Code (5.6.23-24) requiring members to ensure that any material received direct from third parties relating to an application was made available to the relevant planning officers.

Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.

The Committee was minded to grant planning permission, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, and authorised officers to do so subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising.

(Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.)

(Councillor James had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Bowen 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, 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 G Poulton, of Luston Group Parish Council spoke in support of the scheme.  Mrs M Albright, the applicant, also spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The proposed density was in keeping with the area and integrated well.

·        The provision of an orchard to the north of the site was a goodwill gesture.

·        The proposal would create no demonstrable harm.

·        There was no demonstrable need for affordable housing.  The last housing needs survey had been undertaken in 2009.  Two units were currently empty.  The possibility of discounted market housing had been dismissed by the Planning officer.

·        The developer had approached housing associations about the two semi-detached dwellings proposed but there had been no interest.  The other houses could be self-build for which there was considerable demand, or custom build.  The housing mix provided a good variety of family homes, including provision for home working reducing commuting, and for extended families. The properties were not large. The proposal related well to neighbouring properties and was well designed.

·        Most of the materials for the development would come from within the County and construction would involve a local workforce.

·        The developer was providing numerous hedges and trees and a good footpath to the village.

·        The developer had worked closely with the Parish Council.  The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There were no objections from local residents.  The proposal did accord with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        The proposal would enhance the village and make an attractive entrance to it.

·        The Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had no objection.

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had commented that permission should not be granted until it could be demonstrated that the River Lugg catchment area could accommodate any potential additional phosphate loadings.

·        Contrary to the Informative set out in the report the applicant had made every effort to find a way forward.

·        He referenced the letters of support at section 5.2 of the report.

·        In conclusion, he supported the proposal.  If planning permission could not be granted at this stage because of the issue of phosphate discharge into the Lugg catchment he requested that approval be granted subject to that aspect being satisfactorily resolved.

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

·        A member expressed support for the views of the local ward member and the Parish Council. 

·        The proposal for 8 dwellings was acceptable and conformed to the density of development in the locality, avoiding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 161674/O (construction of three dwellings and alterations to the existing access) for appearance, landscaping, scale. 

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

(Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 161674/O (construction of three dwellings and alterations to the existing access) for appearance, landscaping, and scale.)

(Councillor Bowen 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, Councillor Bowen, fulfilling the role of local ward member for the application, spoke upon it.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was required to be considered by the Committee because it was an application by a Councillor. 

·        The site had outline planning permission and the application before the committee was a straightforward one for reserved matters.  Although a better design for the proposed dwellings might be desired the proposed design was acceptable. 

·        The site was well sheltered by existing hedges.

·        The footpath crossing the site would be cleared and made usable.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application some reservation and disappointment was expressed that the design did not reflect the local idiom and the opportunity had not been taken to provide dwellings of a better design.

It was suggested that the orientation of the dwellings could have been improved to benefit from solar energy in accordance with the council’s aim to reduce carbon emissions.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the materials to be used and the designs were similar to those used in the village.  In the review of the Core Strategy further account would be taken of climate change.  Building Regulations at national level were being revised and, although these were not a matter for the Committee, he would arrange for a briefing note to be circulated.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged reservations expressed about the design but reiterated that the design was acceptable.

Councillor James proposed and Councillor Stone seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 13 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

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.           The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. AB-01, AB-02a, AB-03a – Received: 06 September 2019) and the schedule of materials indicated thereon.

            Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans and to protect the general character and amenities of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Erection of a single dwelling and garage for occupation by site manager.

The Committee was minded to grant planning permission, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, and authorised officers to do so subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment, and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising, and a S106 agreement tying both the existing accommodation and the proposed dwelling to the business.

(Erection of a single dwelling and garage for occupation by site manager.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Bozward, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application hinged on the need for the applicant to have accommodation on site and what quality of accommodation was required.

·        The site provided local employment for many young people in the summer.  It provided the only pub and café in the area. It was well-run.

·        The applicant was not a publican but his accommodation was within the pub with rented accommodation above.  His responsibilities for the site meant he had to be there from 6am until late at night.  His presence on site was essential.  Whilst, if the new dwelling some 50m away was approved, he may well still be called upon by those using the site, the quality of life for him and in particular his partner would be improved.

·        He considered there was a need for the applicant to have the proposed house and to provide it would be compliant with policy RA4.  However, the property should be tied to the business.

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

·        There were no objections to the proposal and 25 letters in support.

·        The proposed site for the dwelling was not in use and unkempt, out of character with the rest of the site.  The proposal would round off the development. 

·        There was an essential functional need.  The applicant’s existing accommodation on site was inadequate.  The proposal was compliant with policy RA4.

·        It was suggested that, if approved, consideration should be given to seeking for the dwelling, which would be in the open countryside, to be of exceptional quality or innovative design.

The Lead Development Manager commented that officers had concluded that the existing accommodation enabled the site to be appropriately managed.  This was a matter of judgment.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application, authority to grant planning permission would need to be delegated to officers subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising.  A S106 agreement tying both the existing and proposed accommodation to the business should also be required.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comment.

Councillor Hunt proposed and Councillor Millmore seconded a motion that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission, subject to a positive Habitat Regulations Assessment and no other material considerations or changes in policy arising, and completion of a S106 agreement tying both the existing accommodation and the proposed new dwelling to the business, on the grounds that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Proposed development of two dwellings.

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

(Proposed development of two dwellings.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms S Parkinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There was a high level of objection from local people who believed the development would have a negative impact on the character of the settlement, that it was unacceptable in form, design, scale and location and that it would have a severe impact on the local road network, particularly in the light of the application for a single dwelling close by potentially meaning a cumulative increase of three dwellings.

·        For many years Welsh Newton Common had seen minimal growth.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) noted that the common  ‘is characterised as a place of beauty and unspoiled nature with a feeling of remoteness and tranquillity reminiscent of days gone by’.   Many of the objectors believed that the development for two dwellings would change that character forever and set a precedent.

·        The parish as a whole had met the minimum housing target.  Whilst it was recognised that Welsh Newton Common was a settlement considered to be appropriate for proportionate growth in policy RA 2 of the Core Strategy the objectors considered that the proposal did not meet the criteria within that policy  Given that the minimum housing numbers had already been exceeded in the parish, there was no reason for these policies not to carry full weight in the planning balance.

·        The NDP expressed a clear preference for smaller scale, organic growth with 2/3 bed houses and high levels of sustainability wherever possible and that ridge heights should not exceed 6m.  The proposal was in conflict with that policy.

·        Objectors considered the design was not in keeping with the ‘grain’ of the village and would not make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and its landscape setting as required in policy RA2.

·        Many objectors questioned whether Welsh Newton Common  should be a RA2 settlement. The post office and shop had recently closed.  There were now no services on the common.  The bus ran once a week.  Broadband was slow. 

·        The access was via a single track road. This was contrary to Policy MT1 which required that there should be genuine choice as regards movement. Residents had to reverse up sometimes 20 or 40 metres to avoid oncoming traffic.  The nature of the lane made it hard to see pedestrians, horse riders or cyclists and a number of letters raised the fear that the congestion would increase to a dangerous extent if this proposal were permitted.  Further concern related to the cumulative effect in conjunction with the related application for a single dwelling which one objector stated would push it beyond breaking point.  A report had been submitted on behalf of the residents making the case for the impact being ‘severe’ and in contravention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Proposed new dwelling.

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

(Proposed new dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms S Parkinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She commented that many of the points she had made in relation to the preceding agenda item relating to application 191286 also related to application 190827 before the committee.  There was, however, a question of degree to take into account given that the proposal was to provide one dwelling rather than two.

·        Objectors thought the proposal would increase traffic on the access road.

·        The loss of small paddock spaces would alter the character of the village.

·        The area was not suitable for development because of the lack of services.

·        The proposal did not comply with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) in relation to the proposed dwelling’s size and height.

·        The site would be car dependent in conflict with policy MT1 and the NPPF.

·        The NDP did mention the potential for development of the site.  However, this related to conversion or redevelopment of existing buildings.

·        She quoted a letter from an objector which stated that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the common and set a precedent that would be devastating for the common’s future.

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

·        Most of the points made in relation to the preceding agenda item relating to application 191286 also related to application 190827.

·        The proposal was in conflict with the distinct nature of Welsh Newton common. 

·        The proposed dwellings were of a size, height and form that was in conflict with the NDP.

·        It was confirmed that the Parish Council supported the application although it had opposed application 191286.

The Lead Development Manager commented that each application had to be considered on its own merits.  There was a conflict with NDP policies regarding the height and size of the proposed dwellings

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She had no additional comment.

Councillor Fagan proposed and Councillor Milln seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to NDP policies WNL4 and WNL5 and CS policies, SS6, RA2 and SD1. The motion was carried unanimously with 15 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for refusal by the committee on the grounds that the proposal  was contrary to NDP policies WNL4 and WNL5 and CS policies, SS6, RA2 and SD1.

Date of next site inspection – 10 February 2020

Date of next meeting – 11 February 2020

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.