Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, PJ Edwards, MD Lloyd-Hayes, 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 AW Johnson for Councillor CR Butler, Councillor RJ Phillips for Councillor WC Skelton and Councillor D Summers for Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Agenda item 7: Marlbrook Primary School, Hereford

Councillor NE Shaw declared an other declarable interest as a cabinet member and left the meeting for the consideration of this item.

Agenda item 8: Land adjacent to Cawdor Gardens Ross-on-Wye

Councillors PGH Cutter and J Hardwick declared other declarable interests as Council appointees to the Wye Valley AONB Joint Committee.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson thanked the Vice-Chairperson, members of the committee and officers who had supported the committee for their work.

Proposed development of ten dwellings including 2 affordable homes and 2 self build plots and associated access road, footpath link, sustainable drainage, hedgerow, tree and orchard planting.

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

(Proposed development of ten dwellings including 2 affordable homes and 2 self build plots and associated access road, footpath link, sustainable drainage, hedgerow, tree and orchard planting.)

(Councillor J Hardwick fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pryce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He reported that he had requested that the application be considered by the committee because of local interest in the matter.  The draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) could not be given weight.  A great deal of work had been carried out on the application with regard to the design and he supported it.

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

·        The development would change Tarrington.  However, careful consideration had been given to the design.  The development included affordable housing.  It was to be hoped that it would contribute to the overall sustainability of the settlement.  It was not an overdevelopment.  It would bring improvements to the unclassified road.

·        The extra planting and open space was welcomed.  It was requested that care be taken to protect tree root systems.

·        The Parish Council supported main housing growth in the core of Tarrington village.  However, no weight could be attributed to the draft NDP at this stage.

In response to questions the PPO commented:

·        Neither Welsh Water nor the Environment Agency had provided an update in relation to an ongoing pollution issue at Garbrook to which the report referred.  The Council’s land drainage officer had had no comment on that issue.  Clarification would be sought.

·        The Transportation Manager had no objection to the proposed access with the current speed limits.  However, the extant permission for 15 dwellings on an adjacent site included a financial contribution towards a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce speeds from Tarrington towards Garbrook.  In response to an enquiry Balfour Beatty Living Places had invited the Parish Council to submit a formal request.  No response had as yet been received.  However, this was not a requirement in order for the development to proceed.  The visibility splays were acceptable at the current speeds.

·        There were a number of policy issues to be balanced.  The site was not within or adjacent to the built up area of Tarrington or of Little Tarrington where development would have been permitted in accordance with policy RA2. However, having regard to the absence of a 5 year housing land supply and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework officers considered that the scheme addressed the key issues and the benefits outweighed the adverse impact of the conflict with policy RA2 and policy RA3.  Unlike many settlements outside of a settlement boundary residents would have access to the main built up area with a number of improvements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Proposed extension to existing primary school with associated external works including new car park and highway improvement works.

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

(Proposed extension to existing primary school with associated external works including new car park and highway improvement works.)

(Councillor Shaw withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the application.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bothamley, a UK funder of educational services, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The school would always face pressure on places. It served the area of highest population density in the City and Ofsted had rated it an outstanding school.

·        The proposal had been under consideration for some years.  It would provide opportunity for pupils.

·        The school was in a residential area and residents were affected by school traffic.  There was a travel plan in place.  However, car parking issues in the area did arise and the proposed car parking space would be beneficial and was essential.

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

·        There was broad support for the application.  There was an established strategic demand for the additional places and the replacement of the existing temporary buildings was to be welcomed.  The current pressure on parking and the proposed parking provision was noted.

·        A concern was expressed about the potential for the proposal to have an adverse impact on other schools.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that paragraph 6.4 of the report confirmed the need for additional school places in the south of the city.  The proposal would also provide for the replacement of the temporary buildings currently in use.

·        The design could be improved upon.

·        The issue of travel and parking was a much broader issue than just this one school and the effect on its immediate area.

·        It was requested that it be ensured that the trees that would be lost as a result of the development were replaced.

The Lead Development Manager commented that new trees were proposed to replace those that would be lost.  The school did have a travel plan in place.  The replacement of the temporary buildings would be of benefit.

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

Councillor Greenow proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 11 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.

The application was deferred pending further information.

(Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.)

(Councillor Summers had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Williams had left the meeting for a short time and was therefore not permitted to vote.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 in relation to the Cawdor Arch Road Railway Bridge that English Heritage had declined an application in 2013 for the arch to be listed and he expanded on their reasoning.  The removal of the bridge was to allow emergency services vehicles to access the proposed site, in particular fire tenders.  There was no professional objection in heritage terms to the loss of the bridge.  Account had been taken of local sentiment.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs A Park, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

The local ward member, Councillor RL Mayo was unable to attend the meeting.  The Chairperson read out a statement he had submitted.

The statement contained the following principal comments:

·        The application for Cawdor Gardens had been a long time in development.

·        It was sad to see the loss of a wild green space near the centre of town.  However, several concerns have been addressed in the application including providing a play area and a designated wildlife corridor.

·        The removal of the Cawdor railway arch had generated the most objections. He considered this to be an iconic landmark of Ross, in a highly visible and well used thoroughfare. The site had been the subject of a number of applications , most recently in 2017.  That application had been withdrawn.  However, the highways team had agreed that the removal the arch was not necessary to allow access to the site. Instead a priority system where the traffic entering the site would have priority would be acceptable and this system would have the added benefit of slowing down traffic coming down the hill towards the junction at the bottom of the hill. It seemed that it would therefore be possible to develop the site and retain the railway arch. He thought the arch could add some interest and uniqueness to the site.

·        If the application were to be approved he requested that some stringent heads of terms were added to protect the arch from being damaged or removed until there was a guarantee of development or phases of development.

In the Committee’s discussion there was a focus on the possibility of retaining the railway bridge.  One view was that the bridge had no particular merit and the development, which had many public benefits, should proceed as recommended.  A contrary view was that, whilst the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Proposed erection of two detached dwellings and new vehicular access.

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

(Proposed erection of two detached dwellings and new vehicular access.)

(Councillors Greenow, Norman and Summers had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

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, Mrs J Joseph, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow was unable to attend the meeting.  The Chairperson read out a statement he had submitted.

The statement contained the following principal comments:

In principle he was in favour of the application for the following reasons:

·        Broad Oak is a settlement in the Core strategy within the larger parish of Garway. As well as having a popular and successful school the parish also has a new village hall and in Broad Oak itself there is a petrol station and village shop. This means that in the context of rural Herefordshire this location is a highly sustainable option for a small scale development.

·        A bus service operates from Broad Oak to Hereford

·        A reduced speed limit onto the B4521 making it a 30mph zone had made the road much slower addressing any concerns over road safety.  No objection had been made by the Transportation Manager.

·        There is no single style of home in Broad Oak and the variety offered by this new scheme would complement rather than detract from the visual style.

·        Building on pockets like this one on the edge of a sustainable village helped to ensure rural housebuilding and contribute to meeting the housing land supply targets.

·        There had been considerable interest from local families wanting to move to the houses thereby ensuring continuity amongst rural families

In summary, whilst he understood that some existing residents may oppose development in the area more rural housing was needed, particularly this sort of development in this sort of location. 

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

The local ward member supported the application.  The proposal was for 2 houses in a settlement where development was permitted in accordance with policy RA2.

The principle of development did not appear to be at issue.  The site was sustainable.  The question was one of scale and design.

Reference was made to the decision taken on application 184506 earlier in the meeting and the importance of consistency in decision making. It was suggested that it appeared that officers were prepared to recommend approval of a large scheme in an area outside the settlement boundary, giving weight to the social and economic benefits, but were not inclined to attribute such weight in the case of a small scheme.

The Lead Development Manager commented that policy RA2 provided that, in the absence of an NDP, applications would be assessed on whether they were within or adjacent to the built up area.  The majority of NDP’s would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.