There were no apologies for absence.

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

There were no named subsitutes.

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

Agenda item 7: 161407 - Land adjacent to Colwall Village Hall, Mill Lane, Colwall

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest because she was a member of the Malvern Hills AONB Joint Advisory Committee and also knew one of the public speakers.

Councillor JA Hyde declared a non-pecuniary interest as cabinet support member – children’s services.

Agenda item 8:  150478 - Land to the North of the Roman Road and West of the A49, ‘Holmer West’, Hereford.

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he rented land elsewhere from the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed 1 form entry primary school with nursery and parking provision.

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

(Proposed 1 form entry primary school with nursery and parking provision.)

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.

He added that account had been taken of the duty respecting listed buildings under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in considering the application and it was compliant.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Stock of Colwall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Reverend M Horton, a school governor, also spoke in support.

The Chairman read a statement by the local ward member, Councillor AW Johnson, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

In summary this stated that:

·         Colwall is a vibrant and significant community.  The school is popular and a vital asset in keeping young people in the general area and attracting new young families.

·         He fully supported the application as did residents, school staff, the Parish Council and parents. The site and design were the result of considerable thought by the Parish Council, Herefordshire Council and consultation with the local community.

·         Financing of the project was in place and all alternatives had been fully explored.

·         He congratulated the planning officer and his team for their work.

Councillor JG Lester, cabinet member – young people and children’s wellbeing, spoke in support of the application which he said would provide a modern purpose built school to replace the current temporary buildings in the optimum location. He complimented the work of the community, officers and school governors in producing a good scheme, noting the work done to improve the proposal in response to the initial concerns expressed by the Parish Council.  (In accordance with the Constitution he then withdrew from the meeting.)

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

·         Many members spoke in support of the scheme and complimented the exemplary way in which consultation had been undertaken with the local community, and the Case Officer, Mr Close, had worked to address the Parish Council’s initial concerns.

·         A Member suggested that lessons could be learned from this demonstration of the benefits of co-operative working and applied across the county.

·         The scheme blended into the AONB.

·         The site was the optimum site and met a demonstrable need.

·         The ecological enhancements and sustainable measures such as the use of photovoltaic panels were welcomed.

·         The possibility of a higher fence alongside the playground perhaps with noise absorbing qualities was raised.  A contrary view as to the desirability of this was also expressed.

·         Whilst the palette of material to be used in the development was welcomed a member questioned the use of deep purple.

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer commented:

·         Consideration had been given to highway issues in consultation with the Parish Council.  The option of a 20mph speed limit had been discounted because the Parish Council had been concerned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposed erection of up to 460 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space, a park & choose facility, with associated landscaping access, drainage and other associated works.

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

(Proposed erection of up to 460 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space, a park & choose facility, with associated landscaping access, drainage and other associated works.)

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 B Bloxsome spoke on behalf of Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council and Pipe and Lyde Parish Council in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr N Rawlings, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

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

Highways issues

·         Concern was expressed about the potential for the development to lead to increased traffic congestion and that the proposed road through the development site would become a rat run.  It was observed that chicanes had been provided to address a problem of rat running in other areas with some success

·         The possibility of imposing a width restriction to prevent the road through the development being used by farm vehicles in particular was raised.  However, it was observed that this could present a difficulty for emergency vehicles and refuse and removal lorries.

·         Regard should be had to the city council’s request that a comprehensive transport plan should be produced before development commenced. 

·         The impact of the development on congestion should be assessed as each phase was completed.

·         The absence of bus stops which permitted buses to stop without causing a queue behind them needed to be addressed.

·         A replacement for the single carriageway bridge over the railway on the Roman Road was required.

In response the Principal Planning Officer commented that the principal road through the development was designed to take some of the weight of the traffic off the Starting Gate roundabout which was at capacity.  The highways modelling was dependent upon this plan. The need for provision for bus transport was recognised.

Other matters

·         Some support was expressed for the concerns of the city council and parish councils.

·         The capacity of water and power infrastructure in the county to support the level of development proposed within the Core Strategy was questioned.  The Principal Planning Officer commented in response that there was some disappointment with Welsh Water’s approach to its duty to provide a water supply, with Welsh Water suggesting that developers should have to pay for new provision.  The Lead Development Manager added that Welsh Water had been informed of the Core Strategy in order that need could be identified and funding considered to secure supply.

·         It was also questioned whether sufficient account was being taken of health provision needs through consultation with the NHS and the Clinical Commissioning Group.  The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the response from the NHS at paragraph 4.16 of the report.  The Lead Development Manager added that discussions were taking place about provision required across the city as a whole with the pooling of S106 contributions to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Proposed construction of 5 no dwellings with garages.  Formation of new access and private drive and close existing.  Demolition of outbuilding, steel framed barn, wind tunnel and greenhouse.

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

(Proposed construction of 5 no dwellings with garages.  Formation of new access and private drive and close existing.  Demolition of outbuilding, steel framed barn, wind tunnel and greenhouse.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Kirby, of Eardisland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms C Marsden, a local resident, also spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         Whilst mindful of the presumption in favour of development, he supported the Parish Council’s case.  He noted in particular the representations made about flooding and the inadequacy of the proposed evacuation route for residents of the proposed development.

·         Whilst the proposed houses themselves were now to be situated in flood zone 1 flooding was still a risk to those parts of the site in flood zones 2 and 3.

·         The proposal was contrary to the general development principles of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) set out at policy E1.

·         The Land Drainage Manager had no objection to the application, subject to further drainage details being provided prior to construction.  The critical nature of the drainage provision to the development meant that the application was premature and planning permission should not be granted until drainage matters had been resolved.

·         Welsh Water’s response of no objection was predicated on the fact that a private treatment plant was to be provided.  Concerns remained about the risk of flooding and raw effluent being discharged and running through people’s houses.

·         The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it did not comply with policies SD3 and SD4 and was contrary to policy E1 of the NDP.

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

·         It was important that appropriate weight was given to neighbourhood development plans.

·         The concerns expressed about the risk of flooding were significant.

·         It was proposed that the application should be refused on the following grounds:  SS1, SS6, SS7, SD3, SD4, RA2, LD1, LD2, MT1 and H3.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the issues raised were capable of being resolved subject to standard conditions.  The NDP had to be considered as a whole and on that basis the proposal was compliant with the NDP.  If the Committee was minded to refuse the application policies E1 and E9 of the NDP and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF were relevant to that decision in addition to policies already identified in the debate.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SS6, SS7, SD3, SD4, RA2, LD1, LD2, MT1 and H3, policies E1 and E9 of the NDP and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

Date of next site inspection – 23 August 2016

Date of next meeting – 24 August 2016