Proposed development of 9 dwellings (6 x open market and 3 x affordable).

Application approved with a change to the conditions.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Colonel Forrest spoke on behalf of Eardisley Group Parish Council, Mr. Roberts, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Price, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support,

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the site was located within a scenic and sensitive location in Herefordshire. The planning history associated with the site was lengthy and reference was made to the application of April 2022 that was refused and dismissed on appeal. It was commented that very little had changed, in terms of the policy context and circumstances in Winforton, since that previous refusal except an increase in the density of housing proposed in the current application. There was a requirement for extra housing in the county but this should not be located in a village such as Winforton with no infrastructure to support new development. The density of housing proposed in the application was considered excessive and was not felt to be comparable to The Vineyards residential area, proximate to the application site. There was some support in the village for the provision of affordable housing however, the density of development on the proposed site was not acceptable. It was recognised that the site was suitable for development but not at the proposed density of housing.

The committee debated the application. There was frustration among members of the committee that house building targets imposed upon the county had undermined the core strategy and the council’s 5 year land housing supply. Without the required land housing supply in place the council was obligated to adopt a presumption in favour of such developments.

There was concern on the committee that the house proposed for construction on plot one was too close to the access road which undermined residential amenity. A distance of 3 metres, as a minimum, was required to protect residential amenity and a delegation to officers to agree a change to the plans was proposed.

The timing of the implementation of the landscaping scheme and the planting of hedgerow was raised by the committee. In order to mitigate the visual impact of the site on the landscape it was required that the landscaping scheme was undertaken at an earlier stage during construction and occupation of the site. Following clarification from the officers it was required that the landscaping scheme and planting of hedgerow was undertaken following occupation of the first unit on the development site.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained that there was not opposition from the local community to any development on the site but objections related to the density of the development proposed. The updated NPPF in December 2024 did not result in any changes to guidelines that affected the previous grounds for refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6