Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler and PJ Edwards.

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

Councillor EL Holton substituted for Councillor PJ Edwards and Councillor JA Hyde for Councillor CR Butler.

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

Agenda item 5: 180889 – Land adjacent Church Terrace Almeley

Councillor Lloyd-Hayes declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew one of the applicants.

Councillor Powers declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew a resident of an adjoining property.

Agenda item 6: Land adjoining the Chalet Fawley Kings Caple

Councillors Cutter and Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed erection of 2 detached dwellings with detached garages.

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

(Proposed erection of 2 detached dwellings with detached garages.)

(Councillor Skelton as local ward member had no vote on this application.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred by the Committee on 25 July, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He informed the Committee that two objections had been received in response to the consultation on the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which was at Regulation 16 stage.  One of the objections related to the land that was the subject of the application before the Committee.  Only limited weight could be given to the NDP.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs E Tucker, of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Rogers, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, spoke on the application on behalf of the local ward member having fulfilled that role during the processing of the application

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site adjoined the settlement boundary and the Committee had been made aware of the site’s history.

·        It was the last day of consultation on the NDP and he was aware of the objections to the provisions relating to the application site.

·        A judicial review had been lodged against the Committee’s decision on 27June 2018 to grant permission for application 173699 – land at Woonton, Almeley, contrary to the emerging NDP upon which at that time the Regulation 16 consultation had commenced.  Following the Committee’s decision in discussion with the local MP he had been in correspondence with the Minister for Housing.  The Minister had replied that from the date of publication decision takers could give weight to relevant policies in the emerging plan that could include the stage of preparation unresolved objections and consistency with other national policies.  Planning guidance also set out where circumstances may justify the refusal of planning permission on grounds that an application would be premature in relation to the emerging local or neighbourhood plan. Any weight a relevant policy could carry in determining applications remained a matter for the decision maker.

·        He considered that the application should be refused.  The applicant could appeal and it would then be a matter for the Planning Inspector to determine the legal aspects.  Because of the site’s history and this legal grey area he did not consider that this would put the authority at the risk of incurring costs.

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

·        Paragraph 6.8 of the report stated that the main consideration was whether any adverse impacts associated with the development would significantly outweigh the public benefits.  The Parish had not achieved its minimum housing target.  The proposed development of 2 houses was modest, would contribute towards that target, was sustainable and would enhance the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Proposed erection of replacement dwelling and garage.

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

(Proposed erection of replacement dwelling and garage.)

(Councillor Skelton had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Harvey, of Kings Caple Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He questioned the appropriateness of the proposed provision of a replacement dwelling on a different parcel of land to that on which the current chalet was situated.

·        The site history recorded that a number of previous applications had been refused including one on appeal.

·        The proposal was in the Wye Valley AONB requiring particular care to be exercised.

·        Having regard to the provisions of policy RA3 (3) the proposed development was not of comparable size to the dwelling it was to replace and was not within the curtilage of the existing dwelling.

·        The application was infill in the open countryside some distance from the settlement boundary and contrary to the NDP.  It did not meet any of the exception criteria in policy RA3.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal.

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

·        In response to questions the Lead Development Manager commented that replacing a dwelling on a different site within the curtilage was not unusual and was in accordance with policy. This was to allow for the fact that a better location could often be achieved from a planning perspective by relocating within the curtilage.  In the case of this application a wayside dwelling replacing the current dwelling, which was set back from the road, would be more in keeping with the settlement pattern.  The proposed S106 agreement would extinguish the use of the existing property and planning permission for the replacement dwelling would not be granted until the S106 agreement had been signed.  The S106 agreement would also limit the size of the replacement dwelling to a comparably sized replacement.

·        Concern was expressed that the proposal did not comply with paragraph 4.8.25 of the Core Strategy.  This provided detail on the interpretation of policy RA3 (3) which addressed the replacement of an existing dwelling.  The current proposal did not provide for a replacement within the existing curtilage but involved a land swap. This departed from the policy requirements and risked setting a dangerous precedent.

The PPO commented that it was acknowledged, as the report stated, that the proposal was contrary to policy.  However, it was considered to be justified on the grounds that it would be of benefit to the character and appearance of the AONB.  The reduced curtilage shown on the plan excluded the backland area on which the current dwelling was located and would allow that area to be reinstated to open countryside with non-domestic use. 

Officers confirmed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Date of next site inspection – 18 September 2018

Date of next meeting – 19 September 2018

The Committee noted that the date of the next meeting had been changed to the afternoon of 27 September, with site inspections on 25 September if required.