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