Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, DW Greenow and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor JA Hyde substituted for Councillor CR Butler.

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

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 25 July 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 25 July be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed residential development of 25 dwellings along with new access and associated works.

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

(Proposed residential development of 25 dwellings along with new access and associated works.)

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 highlighted that an additional condition was proposed in relation to drainage.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The current proposal was a much more acceptable scheme than that which had been granted outline planning permission in December 2015.  There was only one objection to the current proposal compared to 43 objections to the preceding application.

·        The communication with the Parish Council and the local community on the application had been much improved.  The Parish Council supported the application.

·        The application site had been accepted as a commitment within the Kimbolton Neighbourhood Development Plan.  If the application were approved the Parish would have no difficulty in meeting the minimum housing provision target in the Core Strategy.

·        There were no objections from the statutory consultees.  However, he highlighted the response from Welsh Water regarding conditions and the conditions requested by the Service Manager (Built and Natural Environment).

·        It was disappointing that the provision of the additional housing would result in the loss of public open space and the community orchard proposed in the original application.

·        He hoped that the off-site contribution would be used to improve surrounding public rights of way in the parish.

·        There had been concerns about flooding and pollution and he hoped that reassurance on both sewerage and drainage would be provided.  He noted that the land drainage officer considered the proposals to be largely acceptable in principle, subject to additional information being submitted.

·        A further concern related to the extra traffic that would be generated.  Speeding was an issue in the locality and traffic calming measures would be welcome as would a footway and cycle link between Chestnut Way and the A49. It was to be hoped that measures would be provided from the funding for sustainable transport infrastructure referenced in the draft S106 agreement, appended to the report, in discussion with the Parish Council and the local ward member.

·        The scheme was not perfect but it did represent an improvement on the previous scheme and was unlikely to be improved upon.  On balance he therefore supported it.

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

·        Noting that Welsh Water did not own the treatment plant it was questioned whether this had an adverse implication for the affordability of the proposed affordable housing.

·        The additional condition included in the update sheet would address the significant concerns expressed about sewerage and drainage.

·        Improved pedestrian links to the A49 would be welcome, providing access to Leominster and improving sustainability.

·        The improved communication on the application with the parish council and the community was to be welcomed. 

·        The Parish Council supported the application.

·        It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposed new 2 bedroom dwelling. 

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

(Proposed new 2 bedroom dwelling.)

(Councillor Guthrie 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 A Whibley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        In relation to the proximity of Green Bank to the grade 2 listed building known as “The Creswells” she noted that it was proposed that the ground level upon which the proposed dwelling was to be built would be lowered so that it would accord with the neighbouring properties.

·        The site was bounded by mature hedges.

·        The Transportation Manager had no objection to the proposed access.

·        The applicants were seeking to downsize but remain in the village.

·        The site was accepted within the Neighbourhood Development Plan as being appropriate for a dwelling.  The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were also many letters in support of it from local residents.

·        The only strategic objection was from the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) (CMHB) raising concerns over the location within the conservation area and the size and design of the proposed dwelling adjacent to The Creswells.  The applicants had sought pre-application advice, had modified the design and made every effort to meet the CMHB’s requirements and harmonise with and enhance the conservation area.  However, as set out at paragraph 4.5 of the report the CMHB remained opposed to the proposal although the level of harm to the heritage assets and conservation area was considered to be less than substantial.

·        She considered that the application should be supported.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        The sole objection was from the CMHB who did say that some development on the site should be feasible, however, an innovative solution would be required to achieve this without having a negative impact.

·        One view was that the proposal would not be detrimental to the conservation area. There was a distinct boundary between the plot and The Creswells.  The Creswells did not overlook the plot.  The proposal had some architectural merit that would enhance the area. A contrary view was that the proposal would not conserve and enhance the conservation area and historic assets and was therefore contrary to policy as the CMHB had stated.

·        The development could not be described as a modest development in relation to the size of the site.

·        It should be possible for the applicants to find a suitable property within the village and there appeared to be little justification for the proposal.

·        The setting of the existing property would be adversely affected by building the proposed dwelling in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Proposed 4 bedrooms low level dwelling.

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

(Proposed 4 bedroom low level dwelling.)

(Councillor Williams 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, 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 Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was local support for the application including from the Parish Council and sympathy for the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family.  There were no objections

·        It was possible that Woodyatts field could be identified for development within the Neighbourhood Development Plan that was in preparation.

·        The proposal would contribute to the housing target, was unobtrusive and would not be unwelcome.

·        A footpath provided connectivity to the village.

·        He considered the proposal would be of value and enable the family to provide care that would otherwise have to be provided by health services.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal along with a number of local residents.  There were no objections.

·        One view was that the site was surrounded by other dwellings and could well be identified for development within a neighbourhood development plan.  A contrary view was that no regard could be had to such a hypothetical point.

·        Whilst sympathetic to the applicants’ personal circumstances they were not a material planning consideration.  The proposal represented development contrary to policy in the open countryside. 

·        There were other ways in which the personal needs could have been addressed, for example through the provision of an annex.

·        Having regard to paragraph 6.17 of the report it was questioned whether the property was isolated and in the open countryside and represented unsustainable development.  It was noted that the site was some 300m from the church and shops by footpath and that there were 5 other properties in the immediate vicinity.   Improving footpath access would appear to be an option and a way of making the development sustainable.

·        The PPO commented that in the absence of a NDP and a settlement boundary the Core Strategy required consideration to be given to whether the site was in a main built up area.  The site, whilst it might not be isolated, was not in a main built up area. The B road did not have any footpaths alongside it.   Officers did not consider that a public right of way in itself afforded sufficient, safe accessibility to services and encouraged active travel. Officers’ judgment, supported by recent appeal decisions, was that, even if not isolated, the site was not sustainably located.  She added that this was the first time that the applicant had mentioned personal circumstances in support of the application.  Had these been raised previously other options such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Proposed erection of 5 single bed holiday chalets and associated parking.

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

(Proposed erection of 5 single bed holiday chalets and associated parking.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Jones, of Clifford Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Morgan, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The current business was very successful with many benefits to local businesses, the wider area of the County and beyond.  The applicants were seeking to grow a sustainable business, within the existing curtilage, that would support both parents and employ local staff.  It was not a development in the open countryside.

·        The units would not be visible from most angles but still enabled individual unit views to the north. There was no intention to build any other units in front, as the success of the units depended on their location and view. The roofs would be constructed using high quality “green” materials to soften the design and make them less conspicuous,

·        The Landscape and Conservation officers had observed that there could be a long distance view of the development from the public rights of way on Merbach hill.   Allowing a hedge to the east to grow a little higher and some individual tree planting would maintain the traditional form of the landscape and mitigate any such views from Merbach hill.  The only other potential long distance view was towards the north and this would be mitigated by the non-reflective glass walls of the development facing that direction.

·        The suggestion that the units should be placed in the very small area next to the cattle sheds was not a feasible option.

·        A grade 2 listed building on the site needed repair.  This required additional income. Future development might involve growth in using this building.

·        There was growing tourist demand in and around the Golden Valley area.  The provision of more tourist beds should be supported.

·        The Core Strategy provided for businesses to grow within “a residence and business curtilage”

·        The majority of the officer report was encouraging and supportive. The negative aspects could be mitigated.

·        The issues raised by the Parish Council could be overcome.

·        Supporting the application would demonstrate the Council’s support for businesses.

·        Nearly all of the representations supported the application.

·        He asked the Committee to support the application.

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

·        Policies E4 and RA6 supported the development and business success would also enable the listed buildings on site to be protected.

·        The existing hedges would provide cover for the development.

·        It was understandable that officers suggested a site closer to the existing building would be preferable.  However, the neighbouring farm buildings were not in the applicants’ ownership and it was clear that they did not wish to put the development on that part of the site.

·        There was concern that the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.