Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler and DW Greenow.

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

Councillor GJ Powell substituted for Councillor CR Butler.

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

Agenda item 7: 150930 – Land at Hildersley Farm, Hildersley, Ross-on-Wye

Councillors PGH Cutter and JA Hyde declared non-pecuniary interests as members of Ross-on-Wye Town Council.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2017.

It was noted that Councillor J Hardwick had been incorrectly recorded in the draft minutes as having been present at the meeting.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reported that he had received a request in connection with the housing white paper: “Fixing our broken housing market”. A Member asked that the views of members of the Planning Committee should be represented in the Council’s response to the White Paper.  To that end it was requested that a briefing be arranged for, at the least, Planning Committee members, and quite possibly all members.

The Chairman undertook to investigate the options.

Proposed development of approximately 212 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space and associated works.

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

(Proposed development of approximately 212 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space and associated works)

(Councillor J Hardwick Vice-Chairman in the chair.)

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 confirmed in relation to the objection by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about noise nuisance that the detail would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.  As set out in the update, in recommending granting outline planning permission an additional condition was proposed for noise insulation and reduction measures. The site could be developed in accordance with the revised illustrative Masterplan within the 95 db noise contour.  The MoD had indicated that it would work with the local authority and the applicant as a good neighbour.  Consideration had also been given to whether there were safety issues relating to the proximity of the firing range and it was considered that this aspect could also be satisfactorily addressed.

He also confirmed that following discussion with the highway consultants the proposed bus stops would be relocated.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Lister, of Ross-on-Wye Town Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr P Baldus, a local resident, spoke in objection.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He supported the view of the Town Council in not objecting to the application. In doing so he noted that he was not a member of that council’s planning committee.  He highlighted that the Town Council did, however, have concerns about the proposed access and traffic movements upon which he accordingly invited the Transportation Manager to comment.

·        The proposed provision of affordable housing at a level of 40% was to be welcomed.

·        In relation to noise from the firing range, in his 36 years as a councillor he had not received a single complaint about noise from the range. Consideration did, however, need to be given to the concerns expressed about that aspect.  Account also had to be taken of the fact that the armed forces needed to train.  People who sought to purchase a property would be doing so in the knowledge that the firing range was there.

·        The report in its assessment of the application against policy RW2, on which there had been full public consultation, concluded that all the criteria in that policy had been met.

·        There was a concern about the pressure the development would place on local infrastructure and services.  He would prefer the sum identified in the S106 agreement for medical reasons to be specifically allocated for a health centre on the model farm site.  He requested that as local ward member he should be consulted on the agreement.

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

·        The most recent comments of the MoD indicated that they appeared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

(Retrospective) change of use of land to residential curtilage. Retention of garden room, decking, timber stairs  and steps.

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

((Retrospective) change of use of land to residential curtilage. Retention of garden room, decking, timber stairs and steps.)

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 P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The applicants regretted the application was retrospective.  They had taken legal advice which had proved incorrect. They were willing to compromise.

·        A number of adjacent properties had carried out works.  However, they now had mature gardens.  The scheme under consideration, as a new development, appeared somewhat bare.

·        There had been 13 letters in support of the application.  The development would blend in.  The site had been a wilderness.

·        There was a visual impact but it was unclear how many were affected by it and how much that impact would reduce over time.

·        A mistake had been made but there was scope for a compromise.

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

·        A similar application on land further along the banks of the River Wye had been refused in 2004 and dismissed at appeal.

·        The land alongside the river bank was known for its wildlife and ecological importance.  It had been well understood that it could not be developed.

·        The application would not have been approved had it been submitted in the normal course of events.  Regard had to be had to the special status of the River Wye Special Area of Conservation.

·        There were objections from Natural England, the Conservation Manager (landscape) and the Conservation Manager (Ecology).

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there were no permitted development rights for the site; it was not part of the garden curtilage.

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

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         By virtue of their siting, scale and design, the decking, garden room and associated staircases/steps appear as intrusive, prominent and incongruous structures on the bankside, adversely affecting the character and amenity of the landscape, contrary to policies SS6 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy.

Informative:

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 and identifying matters of concern with the proposal.  The applicants have been given the opportunity to address the issues raised where possible.  However, the issue of landscape impact is fundamental and it is considered not to be possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the Committee Report and the reason for the refusal.  Approval of the scheme is not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Erection of a housing unit comprising of an independently accessed single storey one bedroom dwelling and a two bedroom dormer style bungalow.

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

(Erection of a housing unit comprising of an independently accessed single storey one bedroom dwelling and a two bedroom dormer style bungalow.)

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 confidential medical information, alluded to in the report, had been provided by the applicants.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Hubbard, of Humber, Ford and Stoke Prior Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs S Snead, a relative of the applicant, also spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The report referred to a mobile home on the site but this was better described as a permanent park home.

·        The applicant’s son had severe medical needs and the parents were seeking to continue to provide care for him themselves and facilitate their daughter taking on that role by providing a replacement new building that would allow family members to remain on site.

·        Policy RA3 stated that replacement dwellings would be permitted. The proposal would provide replacement accommodation on the site that was not excessive and would be more sustainable.

·        The Parish Council supported the application and considered that it was consistent with the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        The proposal was also compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

·        The applicant had withdrawn an initial application that had not met with the Parish Council’s approval.  The Parish Council did support the current application.  Paragraph 10.2.6 of the NDP indicated that some development may be permitted on Poplands Lane even though it was outside the settlement boundary.

·        The existing mobile home was coming to the end of its life.  The proposal would provide a superior replacement.

·        Local residents supported the application.

·        The proposal would have no negative visual impact.

·        It was important that the Committee should be consistent in applying the council’s approved policies, which applied equally to smaller applications as to larger ones.

·        The Lead Development Manager clarified that planning permission for the existing park home had lapsed and it was therefore unauthorised development.  The application was for two new dwellings in the open countryside: a large 2 bedroom unit with a single storey one bed unit attached to it but not linked.

·        The legal adviser added that a mobile home was not classified as a dwelling in planning law.  Personal circumstances were not a material planning consideration.

In conclusion the legal adviser reminded members that, as set out at paragraph 6.1 of the report, applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee was not a social care committee.  He reiterated that the application was clearly for two dwellings in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Date of next site inspection – Tuesday 4 April 2017

Date of next meeting – Friday 7 April 2017