Apologies were received from Councillors Graham Andrews, Foxton, Johnson, Millmore, and Watson.

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

Councillor Durkin substituted for Councillor Millmore, Councillor Summers for Councillor Foxton and Councillor Wilding for Councillor Watson.

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 5 – Land off Cotts Lane, Lugwardine

Councillor Rone declared an other declarable interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 7 Land at Old Trecilla Buildings, Lower Herberts Hill, Llangarron.

Councillor Hardwick declared an other declarable interest because he knew one of the applicants.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

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.

Proposed erection of 8 bungalows.  Including 5 chalet type and construction of new access road.

Officers authorised to approve the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with amended conditions.

(Proposed erection of 8 bungalows.  Including 5 chalet type and construction of new access road.)

(Councillor Paul Andrews fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on 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. He added that Natural England had now confirmed that it had no objection to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr  M Wilson, of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr E Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was outside the settlement boundary in the Parish’s Neighbourhood Development Plan.

·        The application site adjoined another site being developed by the applicant and had been referred to in correspondence as phase 2 of the development.   He was concerned that pursuing two smaller developments rather than one larger one avoided the obligation to provide affordable housing that would have attached to a larger development.

·        Access was onto a narrow country lane and the prospect of increased traffic was of concern to residents and parish councillors.

·        The proposal involved the loss of 120m of hedgerow. He was not convinced that translocation of the hedge, as proposed, was viable.

·        He sought assurance that the development on the site was not prevented by the recent judgments relating to development in the River Lugg catchment area.

·        He supported the views of residents and the Parish Council that the application should be refused.

·        Housing provision in the Parish had already exceeded the minimum housing target.

·        The proposal was contrary to NDP policy BL5 – housing in the open countryside and was also contrary to policy BL3 iv as it would not have a safe and suitable access.

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

·        There were no objections from statutory consultees.

·        The proposal abutted existing dwellings, fitted within the settlement and would contribute to its viability.

·        The provision of 8 bungalows as part of the development was to be welcomed.

·        In the absence of a five year housing land supply the location of the site adjacent to the settlement boundary weighed in the application’s favour.

·        It was important to recognise the historic environment.  The proposal would be to the detriment of a sunken lane on the western side of the site and its ancient linear bank.  This could have been avoided by an access to the bottom left of the site.  There was also an unregistered historic park and garden.

In response to questions the Lead Development Manager commented:

·        The local ward member’s reference to two phases of development and the avoidance of certain planning obligations as a consequence was addressed within the report at paragraphs 6.62-6.70.   The developer had completed the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

(Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.)

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Erection of three dwellings and associated works.

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

(Erection of three dwellings 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Lodge, of Llangarron Parish Council, spoke in support of the scheme.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent, and Mrs A Farr, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been a high level of objection to the proposal.  However, the Parish Council supported the application and there had also been a number of letters in support of it.  Those in support considered the application to be compliant with policy bringing new life to the village and that the impact of the proposal had been exaggerated.  The applicant had listened and amended the plans in response to views expressed. The site was well located and close to what amenities there were.  The dwellings were well designed.

·        Those objecting considered the proposal would have a negative impact on the settlement and was unacceptable in form, design and location.  It would also have a negative impact on neighbouring properties, in particular the Grade ll listed Box Bush Cottage, a heritage asset, because of the proximity and the height of the new dwellings.  The elevated position of the site meant the floor level of the dwellings would be higher than the cottage’s eaves potentially dominating the dwelling.  There would also be an adverse impact on the wider setting and landscape.

·        The development would add to the cumulative impact on the road network.

·        Drainage was also a concern because of the area’s hilly nature. 

·        The parish had exceeded the minimum housing target.  Objectors considered that the proposal did not meet the requirements of policy RA2.

·        The applicant had sought to include sustainability measures.  However, the lack of public transport meant people would have to travel by car.

·        The landscaping would be an important factor in mitigating the impact of the development.

A member observed that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the Parish Council supported the application.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and Councillor Hunt seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation with an amended condition as set out in the update sheet.  The motion was carried unanimously with 13 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.           C01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.           C06 – Development in accordance with the approved plans ( drawing nos. P1.003 Rev C, P1.10 Rev C, P1.020 Rev A, P1.030, P1.100 Rev C, P1.101 Rev A, P1.102 Rev A, VA002 Rev A, the Sustainability Statement PF 301, 1396 C05 Rev B, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Date of next site inspection – 14 January 2020

Date of next meeting – 15 January 2020

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.