Apologies were received from Councillors EL Holton, JA Hyde and TM James.

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

Councillor PA Andrews substituted for Councillor TM James and Councillor GJ Powell for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

Agenda item 7: 131913 and 131916 Brightwells auction at the former Madley airfield, Stoney Street, Madley, Herefordshire

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he traded with Brightwells.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he traded with Brightwells.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

131913 - Variation of condition 15 of permission s102843/f to allow 2 no. Sales per month (fortnightly).

131916 – Variation of condition 4 of permission 102843 to allow sales of commercial vehicles.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to officers being authorised to revisit conditions in consultation.

(Variation of condition 15 of permission s102843/f to allow 2 no. Sales per month (fortnightly) and variation of condition 4 of permission 102843 to allow sales of commercial vehicles.)

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.

There were no public speakers.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Whilst he had had no direct representations, when he had asked local residents for their views concerns had been expressed to him about the detrimental effects caused by the amount of traffic, including large vehicles, the auctions generated.  A number of allegations had also been made that weekend working had been taking place.

·        Madley Parish Council had requested that, if approved, traffic calming measures be provided on Stoney Street, the preference being for a chicane rather than traffic humps because of the noise those would generate; that the condition prohibiting weekend working be enforced and that priority be given to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for a speed limit that had been requested.

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

·        Members emphasised the importance of the conditions of any planning permission for the site being firmly enforced.

·        A concern was expressed that the statement at paragraph 6.3 of the report that the proposal would generate an additional 7-10 jobs at the site implied greater traffic generation than the assessment in the report suggested. 

·        The Transportation Manager commented that the TRO relating to a speed limit reduction was subject to consultation with the police and other parties and may not prove possible.

·        A number of members spoke in support of a speed limit.  A Member commented that he did not support traffic calming in the form of chicanes.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that the applicants had indicated their willingness to work with the Parish Council on the TRO.

·        The highways impact was not so severe that the proposal should be refused having regard to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        The Principal Planning Officer commented that the application had been lodged some time ago.  Comments in the report outlining concerns expressed by the Parish Council dated from 2013.  The planning service had raised complaints about breaches of conditions with the applicant and the Parish Council had made no comment in response to the two most recent consultations on the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He re-emphasised the importance of the applicant adhering to any conditions attached to the planning permission, the prohibition on weekend working and the progression of the TRO.

It was proposed that officers be authorised to finalise conditions to ensure their robustness after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member.

RESOLVED:  That, in respect of both applications 131913 and 131916, officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Proposed erection of 25 new dwellings of mixed tenure and associated works to provide a new access road.

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

(Proposed erection of 25 new dwellings of mixed tenure and associated works to provide a new access road.)

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.

She corrected paragraph 6.26 of the report, confirming that the proposal would not represent an intensification of use that would result in a detrimental impact on the local and strategic highway network.  She also corrected paragraph 6.28 of the report noting that no S106 agreement would be required.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr H Ray, Chairman of Pyons Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G McLeod, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Tomlinson from Herefordshire Housing spoke on behalf of the applicant.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development might appear to be a straightforward expansion of an approved scheme, but that was not the case.

·        The planning permission for the original scheme had required a drainage scheme to be approved in writing and that no development should take place until that approval had been granted.  However, development had commenced on site.

·        The sum of money that the developer had agreed to provide under the S106 agreement for the original scheme to mitigate the effect of the original development had been reduced.  A larger development was now being proposed creating an even greater need for mitigating measures that would no longer be provided.

·        The new proposal would provide less, or even no, green space.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy RA2 of the Core Strategy and policy PG3 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

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

·        The original proposal had been unsatisfactory; the new proposal was worse.  The village was opposed to the scheme and the NDP had identified other sites.

·        Policy RA2 placed an emphasis on NDPs determining what housing individual settlements required.  This must be interpreted to mean that the NDP for a settlement had primacy.  Irrespective of the need for affordable housing in the county as a whole, the research carried out in developing the Pyons Group NDP had not identified a need in their settlement for the level of affordable housing that the application proposed.

·        The Principal Planning Officer explained in relation to the provision of a S106 agreement that at the council’s request the applicant had engaged the district valuer to consider the viability of the original scheme.  It had been concluded that the scheme was not viable when fully policy compliant and a deed of variation was agreed that reduced the affordable housing provision to 9 units and included a contribution of approximately £57,750.  However, there were two people with an interest in the land who needed to be signatory to the section 106 agreement. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To enable 15 metres of panel fence to be retained with a height of 2.60 metres. (retrospective).

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

(To enable 15 metres of panel fence to be retained with a height of 2.60 metres (retrospective).

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 A Tyler spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Kelly the adjoining owners in objection to the application.  Mr P Draper, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman read out a statement from the local ward member, Councillor PE Crockett who had been unable to attend the meeting.  In summary this stated that there had been a number of objections from local and non-local residents to the application, including one from Burghill Parish Council  The applicant had submitted a ‘statement of fact’ in relation to their application. The Planning Officer had recommended approval.  It appeared that a case could be made both in support of and against the application.

Several members expressed the view that the application should be refused.  There were a number of objections including one from the Parish Council.  Reference was made to the case officer’s comments at paragraph 6.12 of the report that there was little if any justification for a fence of the height as constructed and that a reduction in height would mitigate the impact on the neighbour’s property.  The fence should be restricted to the height of 2 metres, for which planning permission was not required, in the interests of residential amenity.

A contrary view was expressed that the fence did not have an impact on the amenity of the neighbour or the village and the application should be approved.

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 policy SD1.

Date of next site inspection – 1 November 2016

Date of next meeting – 2 November 2016