Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, PJ Edwards, EL Holton, JLV Kenyon, and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor WLS Bowen substituted for Councillor PJ Edwards, Councillor EPJ Harvey for Councillor JLV Kenyon and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

Agenda item 9: 170984 – Land at Four Winds, Phocle Green, Ross-on-Wye

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 10: 170465 – Land Adjacent to Holly Brook Cottage, Lyde.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2017.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reported that this was Leenamari Aantaa-Collier’s last meeting as legal adviser to the Committee and thanked her for her contribution to the Committee’s work.

Proposed site for up to 80 dwellings, garages, parking, open space and indicative road layout.

Consideration of the application was deferred pending a site visit.

(Proposed site for up to 80 dwellings, garages, parking, open space and indicative road layout.).

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 although no formal written response had been received from the Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) they had confirmed, at a meeting on 31 July 2017, that Nunwell Surgery was at capacity.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs C Hughes, a local resident, speaking on behalf of residents of Ashdown Way spoke in objection. 

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 was a windfall development.  No local authority plan had designated the site for housing.

·        Core Strategy Policy BY1 stated that Bromyard would accommodate a minimum of 500 new homes together with around 5 hectares of new employment land during the plan period.  Bromyard and Winslow Town Council had decided not to pursue a Neighbourhood Development Plan having been unable to identify employment land.  It was now seeking to participate in the production of the Bromyard Area Development Plan.

·        The Parish Council’s preference and that of the local population was for development to take place at the strategic housing location Hardwick Bank as provided for in Core Strategy policy BY2.  

·        He questioned whether the proposal was premature and contrary to the provision of policy SS5 requiring the provision of employment land.

·        He highlighted and supported the concerns expressed by Nunwell Surgery that the current capacity was insufficient to meet the additional need that the development would generate.

·        St Peters Bromyard Primary School was at or over capacity.

·        He questioned whether the development was necessary and whether it would jeopardise infrastructure and the delivery of the strategic housing site at Hardwick Bank.

·        In relation to the impact on the landscape and conformity with policy LD1, whilst the planning officer had commented that the planning application was for outline permission applications for planning permission on adjacent sites had been refused and dismissed on appeal on landscape grounds.  Recent legal judgements meant that the authority could give weight to this aspect notwithstanding the absence of a five year housing land supply.  Development proposals should conserve and enhance the landscape.

·        In summary he asked the Committee to consider whether the proposal jeopardised the development of the Hardwick Bank site because of the pressure on infrastructure, whether it was contrary to policy SS5 given the absence of employment land in the Parish and contrary to policy LD1 because of its adverse impact on the landscape.  

·        If the application were to be approved he requested that the Town Council and local community be involved in consideration of the reserved matters.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Proposed holiday park for 40 holiday caravans, associated infrastructure and managerial lodge.

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

(Proposed holiday park for 40 holiday caravans, associated infrastructure and managerial lodge.)

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 A Elliot, of Acton Beauchamp Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Venables, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Lambe, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She questioned whether the development was sustainable.  Any other form of development would have been refused planning permission on the grounds that it represented development in the open countryside.

·        A recent application for the construction of 5 dwellings next door to the application site had been refused at appeal on the grounds that it was not a sustainable location and another application for a house in Acton Beauchamp had been refused on the grounds that it represented development in the open countryside.

·        In this case weight was being given to the economic benefits of the development associated with tourism.  She highlighted paragraph 6.2 of the report which referred to policy E4 – tourism.  She noted that having regard to paragraph 2 of policy E4 the policy supported the development of sustainable tourism opportunities “where there is not detrimental impact”.  It was questionable whether the landscaping plans would be capable of mitigating the impact of the proposed development. It was also the case that there were a number of caravan developments in the area (the adjoining Malvern view (permission for 323 caravans and lodges), and, on the other side of Bromyard, Saltmarshe Castle (approx. 100 caravans) and Rock Farm (approximately 40 caravans). The application site did not support the type of developments referred to in paragraph 4 of policy E4.  There would be some economic benefit but this had to be weighed against the other impacts of the proposal.

·        The area was very rural; the parishes of Stanford Bishop, Acton Beauchamp and Evesbatch had small populations and the cumulative impact of the development on the locality had to be viewed in that context.  There had been 31 letters of objection, a large number given the population.

·        The access road was very narrow.  The Transportation Manager had originally recommended refusal of the application.  Some mitigation in the form of new white lines had now been proposed but there was a question as to whether this was sufficient, noting also that their condition would deteriorate over time.  Visibility splays were also a concern and the right turn travelling to Bromyard was difficult.

·        In summary the application site was not in a sustainable location; the economic benefit was not sufficient to outweigh this and there was already a significant number of such developments in the area.  There were significant highways concerns and landscape issues.

In the Committee’s discussion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Erection of a 3 bed dwelling, amended access and bio-disc drainage.

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

(Erection of a 3 bed dwelling, amended access and bio-disc drainage.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Long, the applicant, and Mr B Griffin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was in the open countryside but the application had to be put in perspective.  There were some 10 properties close by including a gated estate of 4 bungalows next door.  The application site was not isolated but would form part of a hamlet and intrude no further into the open countryside than the estate next door.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There were 29 letters in support and 2 objections.

·        He noted the circumstances of the applicant, an agricultural worker, as at paragraph 6.12 of the report.  He acknowledged that the application did not comply with policy RA3 but considered that it had merit.

·        In summary the site was not an isolated development, but would form part of a viable hamlet in the open countryside on a brownfield site.

The Chairman commented that he was the local ward member for the applicant’s current dwelling but not the ward member for the application site.

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

·        The application for a small development on a brownfield site would not intrude any further into the open countryside than the existing development which formed a small hamlet. It was sustainable.

·        There was local support for the application including the Parish Council.

·        The applicant was a council tenant losing his tenancy and seeking to provide accommodation for himself on waste land. 

·        Weight could not be given to the personal circumstances of the applicant, however sympathetic to these Members may be.  The application was contrary to policy RA2 and did not meet the exception criteria in policy RA3. 

·        Reference was made to the reasons for the refusal of an earlier application set out at paragraph 3.22 of the report and it was suggested that nothing had changed since that refusal.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the adjacent bungalows had been approved on appeal.  The inspector had commented on the unique nature of the application and the significant harm presented by the poultry units then on that site.  The application needed to be determined in accordance with the development plan.  The application was contrary to policy.  The site was in the open countryside.  The applicant owned an adjoining property.  The applicant had submitted no evidence, for example the requested additional information on transportation aspects, to counter the reasons for refusal of the previous application. 

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

A motion that the application be approved on the basis that it represented a sustainable location for a single dwelling was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Proposed bungalow and garage with access.

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

(Proposed bungalow and garage with access.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Stain, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mrs Hall, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The Parish Council objected to the application for the reasons set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·        The gradient of the proposed driveway was severe.  There was a concern that removal of soil to achieve the access would result in subsidence to the neighbouring boundary wall and garden.

·        There was a concern that emergency vehicles would be unable to access the property.

·        She noted concerns of the Conservation Manager (Ecology) about the clearance of the site by the applicant that had taken place. 

·        Policy RA2 identified Pipe and Lyde as an area where sustainable growth would be supported.  She questioned the sustainability of the application for 1 dwelling against the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. 

·        There was a dispute over land ownership.

·        A previous application on the site had been refused.

·        In summary she considered the proposal would have an adverse environmental impact.  This outweighed any modest social and economic benefit and the development was not sustainable.

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

·        A general concern was expressed about the access and visibility.  Clarification was requested on the suitability of the access given its gradient and the potential impact on the neighbouring property.  The Area Engineer – Development Control commented that the gradient was within the range permitted by the relevant standards.

·        Concern was also expressed about sewerage and foul water disposal.

·        It was noted that the clearance of the site, however regrettable, was not a material consideration. 

·        Mindful of the comments of the Conservation Manager (Ecology) it was asked what conditions could be imposed to provide mitigation in response to the clearance of the site, with the additional aim of preventing intensification of development on the site having regard to concerns about the access.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application site was compliant with policy RA2 and represented organic growth.  It had been judged that the application was suitable for one dwelling.  A further application would be required if additional development of the site was proposed.  The refusal of a previous application for 2 dwellings had happened prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy and the inclusion of Pipe and Lyde as a settlement listed in policy RA2 where proportionate growth would be accepted.  The Strategy provided for minimum growth of 25 dwellings and to date only one had been built.  He suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application an additional conditional be applied regarding landscaping.  The proposal was sustainable development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Date of next site inspection – 22 August 2017

Date of next meeting – 23 August 2017