None.

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

None.

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.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson thanked members for their attendance at the site viists.

The legal advisor to the Committee read a statement to the meeting reminding all present of the requirements of the purdah period preceding the general election on 12 December 2019.

Site for a mixed use development including the erection of up to 625 new homes (including affordable housing), up to 2.9 hectares of b1 employment land, a canal corridor, public open space (including a linear park), access, drainage and ground modelling works and other associated works.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to give the applicant time to amend the application to include a second access point through the viaduct.

(Site for a mixed use development including the erection of up to 625 new homes (including affordable housing), up to 2.9 hectares of B1 employment land, a canal corridor, public open space (including a linear park), access, drainage and ground modelling works and other associated works.)

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 J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council and Mr D Williams of Wellington Heath Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr R Gates, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr N Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member and adjoining ward members were invited to speak.

Adjoining ward member Councillor I’Anson made the following principal comments. The scheme had benefits.  The development had been carefully planned.  It would provide much needed affordable housing.  There was a good housing mix meeting local need.  The provision of employment land also contributed to the sustainability of the development.  The site was close to the railway station.  The reinstatement of a section of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal would provide an attractive feature and the tow path would provide a safe walking and cycling route towards the Town’s allotments on the Bromyard Road. It might also offer opportunities for partnerships with local colleges and craft apprenticeships.  There were good walking and cycling links to the Primary School, Town Centre and recreational facilities.  The developer contribution to development of the primary school and sports facilities and expansion of health care facilities was welcome.  The extension of the linear riverside park was also welcome.

On the other hand there were some concerns.  The site was in a category 1 flood zone.  However, there was concern that flood risk was increasing.  A water mill had previously been adjacent to the site.  However, access was the principal issue.  The proposed access was too far from the town centre so there would be increased car journeys.  Pedestrian use of the Bromyard road was currently an issue.

Adjoining ward member Councillor Howells read out a detailed submission.  A copy is included within the schedule of updates appended to these minutes.  In summary, he commented that there was not opposition in principle to the development.  However, the proposal that there should be a single access of the B4214 Bromyard Road was not acceptable.  A second access should be provided from the A438 Leadon Way/Hereford Road roundabout.

Councillor Harvey, the local ward member, then spoke on the application.  She made the following principal comments.  The access to the site was the principal issue. The Deer Park estate to the south of the Town had been developed with a single access and this had caused considerable difficulties within the community. A second access at the other end of the estate had eventually been provided.  The Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Outline application for residential development (with all matters reserved except for access), public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure works.

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

(Outline application for residential development (with all matters reserved except for access), public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure works.)

(Councillors Seldon and Stone had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Millmore fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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 D Cooper of Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme. Mrs R Walkden, a local resident, spoke in objection and a supporter, Mr P Sulley the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was concern about the access point onto the Canon Pyon road which was just after a blind bend and appeared unsafe.

·        There were already traffic delays on the Roman Road.  The application would increase traffic volumes.

·        A bus stop could not be installed because the road and pavement were too narrow.

·        Whitecross School and Holmer Academy were over capacity as was Bobblestock Surgery.

·        He referenced Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council’s objection to the application.

·        He criticised a poor level of engagement by the developer with the local community.

·        He requested that particular regard be had to the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan to which it was advised moderate weight could be attributed in decision making.  The application site was outside the settlement boundary and therefore contrary to policy HS2. Having regard to paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework, no objections to the settlement boundary had been received. The Neighbourhood Planning Team had no holding objections to it. The NDP would soon be in a position to carry significant weight.

·        The Parish had already met its proportionate housing growth target.  The application site did not form part of the strategic site identified at Holmer West.  The Strategic Planning Team had confirmed that the NDP was in conformity with the NDP and NPPF. 

·        The applicant had not submitted an objection in response to the Regulation 16 consultation.

·        The Strategic Planning Team at paragraph 4.16 of the report had stated that the position on the production of a Hereford Area Plan was unknown and no weight could be attached to it.

·        The NDP had entailed considerable work, provided for large scale and small scale development and commanded support in the local community, as a result of extensive engagement.  He requested that the Committee gave it more weight than indicated in the report as it would imminently be made and would therefore be able to be taken into account if there were to an appeal against refusal of planning permission.  The NDP alone provided material grounds for refusing the application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.