Apologies were received from Councillor PJ Edwards.

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

Councillor RI Matthews substituted for Councillor PJ Edwards.

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

Agenda item 10: 163364 – Land south of Ladywell Lane, Kingsthorne

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

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2017.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were none.

Outline application for approval of new vehicular access only. Demolition of existing site infrastructure and construction of a mixed use development comprising up to 25 dwellings, 3 offices (b1 use class), a village hall, children day-care centre, together with internal roads, car parking, landscaping and drainage.

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

(Outline application for approval of new vehicular access only. Demolition of existing site infrastructure and construction of a mixed use development comprising up to 25 dwellings, 3 offices (b1 use class), a village hall, children day-care centre, together with internal roads, car parking, landscaping and drainage.)

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 highlighted that the District Valuer, who was independent, had concluded that the site would not be economically viable if the site was required to provide affordable housing and Section 106 contributions.   In other respects, contrary to the additional representations received and reported in the update the only significant change to the application was the repositioning of some dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr  A Watkins, of Eardisley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Killick, a local resident speaking on behalf of Eardisley Village hall Committee and local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr D Jackson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Policy MD1 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) identified the old saw mill site for development. Over the period during which the plan had been developed the local aspiration for provision for employment opportunities had grown.  The mixed use scheme proposed for the site appeared an excellent idea in principle.  However, he had a number of concerns.

·        The site’s size and topography placed constraints upon the development.

·        There was concern about noise levels generated by a business that produced woodchips. 

·        It was important that account was taken of the existing occupants of the site.

·        The information provided on flood risk was a little vague.  Eardisley continued to be at risk of flooding and in heavy rainfall water ran through the site.

·        The emergency flood plans appeared inadequate.

·        There was a question as to the extent to which the site was contaminated, noting the use of arsenic based preservatives used at the former saw mill.

·        There were some concerns about traffic, noting the narrowness of the roads and the large vehicles that used the neighbouring industrial site.  There were issues to be resolved but he considered there was scope to make the required improvements.

·        Any housing needed to be of good quality.

·        In summary, the principal concerns related to pollution, the mix of development, flooding and the capacity of the site.  He considered the site should be developed but the current application contained insufficient information on which to make a decision.

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

·        The proposal appeared to have several benefits.

·        The Parish Council had supported the principle of development and the NDP identified the site for development.  However, the Parish Council was opposed to the current application.  Its view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Proposed 5 no. Dwellings with garages and treatment plant.

Officers were authorised to grant planning permission, following consultation, subject to there being no adverse comments received from Historic England.

(Proposed 5 no dwellings with garages and treatment plant.)

The Development Manager 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 Historic England had requested to be consulted on the application but no response had yet been received.  Accordingly it was proposed to seek delegated authority to determine the application, subject to no adverse comment from Heritage England.  He drew attention to the response to additional representations made by the Parish Council and the comment of the new Senior Building Conservation Officer.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms H Hamilton, of Aymestrey Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Johnston, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She highlighted the concerns about traffic speeds at the location and noted the work already undertaken by the Parish Council to produce a scheme for which funding had been provided by the Police and Crime Commissioner.  There was a concern that the development would prevent or reduce the effectiveness of this scheme.  She requested that if Historic England was opposed to the development the matter was brought back to the Committee for consideration.

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

·        The Transportation Manager confirmed that the applicant had offered £10k towards the proposed traffic calming scheme.  Although that scheme was fully funded the sum could be used for associated engineering features.

·        It was suggested that the 30mph speed limit should be extended southwards.

·        One view was that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the setting of the grade 1 listed church. Others considered that it would not preserve or enhance the setting. In addition there was no information on the proposed design and the impact that might have on the setting.

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal and it was contrary to the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan.

·        A need for affordable housing had been identified, not for the type of dwellings being proposed.

·        A concern was expressed about the possible impact on the River Lugg and the need to ensure that water treatment and drainage arrangements were sufficient.  It was asserted that the Council needed to be able to prove that the development would have no adverse impact and there was no evidence that it could do so.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the application would be brought back to the Committee for consideration if adverse comment was received from Historic England. He drew attention to the comments of the new Senior Building Conservation Officer in the update that he did not consider that the development would harm the setting of the church.  The size of the development represented organic growth.  The NDP was at regulation 14 stage and whilst it was a material consideration it could not be attributed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Proposed dwelling.

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

(Proposed dwelling.)

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 Thomas, a relative of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal, a care assisted bungalow, was well supported by the local community.

·        The design was in keeping with the existing buildings and enhanced the house and estate.

·        The development was on the edge of open countryside but within the grounds of Eaton Hill.

·        It was in accordance with the Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan which was at Regulation 16 stage.  It also complied with Core Strategy policies H2, SS1, SS2 and SS4.  She considered that it met the criterion of policy RA3 as a proposal of exceptional quality and innovative design satisfying the design criteria set out in Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and achieved sustainable standards of design and construction.

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

·        The proposal would not harm the setting.

·        It was sustainable in terms of transport compared with development in many other parts of the County.

·        The proposal was development contrary to policy.  It could not be considered to be innovative design.  It was in the open countryside. 

·        The Hereford and Worcester Garden Trust had objected.

·        The objective of providing a purpose built bungalow with accommodation for a carer could have been achieved in a different way with less adverse impact.

The legal adviser reminded the Committee that the application must be determined in accordance with the development plan.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the design, whilst good, did not fulfil the criterion of policy RA3 and the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  It was outside the settlement boundary for Leominster and was in the open countryside.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that the proposal provided a useful facility and was sustainable.  The development was not in open countryside and would not be detrimental.

It was proposed that the application should be approved on the grounds that the proposal was of exceptional quality and innovative design in a sustainable location.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to any conditions considered necessary by officers on the grounds that the proposal was of exceptional quality and innovative design in a sustainable location.

Site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access.

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

(Site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Cook, of Much Birch Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms A Doran, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Morris, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He highlighted the local opposition to the proposal.  Concerns centred on highway safety, the visual impact and drainage. It was believed that the development would add to existing drainage problems.

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

·        The Transportation Manager did not object to the principle of development.  Neither did the Drainage Manager.

·        There did appear to be considerable local concern about the drainage.

·        There were concerns about the access but the impact was not so severe as to warrant refusal of the application.

·        Whilst there was no defined settlement boundary, if a Neighbourhood Development Plan were produced and one was defined it was probable that the development would be adjacent to it and therefore in accordance with that Plan.

·        Paragraph 4.3.1 of the report assessing any likely effect on the River Wye Special area of Conservation/Site of Special Scientific Interest and the conclusion that there would be no likely significant effects, was welcomed.

The Lead Development Manager commented that it had been concluded that the access was satisfactory.  It was also considered that the drainage issues had been resolved, however, this aspect would be subject to further detailed consideration at the reserved matters stage.  In weighing the application in the balance the council did not currently have a five year housing land supply and the proposal was consistent with policy RA2.   The Government had also indicated in the housing white paper its view that weight could be given to the economic benefit to the local economy of work for local builders.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated the importance of ensuring that there was a sound solution to the drainage issues.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          A01 - Time limit for commencement - Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2          The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

            Reason:  Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3          Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Date of next site inspection – 16 May 2017

Date of next meeting – 17 May 2017

The Chairman reported that Mr Tompkins, Senior Planning Officer, was leaving the council.  He thanked him for his hard work and, on behalf of the Committee, wished him the best for the future.