Apologies were received from Councillor Brig P Jones CBE.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor P Rone attended the meeting as a substitute member for the currently vacant conservative party seat on the Committee.

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

6. SE100966/F - PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

6. SE100966/F - PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

6. SE100966/F - PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

11. 130191/O - LAND ADJACENT HARWELL, BRAMPTON ABBOTS, ROSS ON WYE, HR9 7JD.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

11. 130191/O - LAND ADJACENT HARWELL, BRAMPTON ABBOTS, ROSS ON WYE, HR9 7JD.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

11. 130191/O - LAND ADJACENT HARWELL, BRAMPTON ABBOTS, ROSS ON WYE, HR9 7JD.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

12. S123565/F - SUFTON RISE, MORDIFORD, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4EN.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

12. S123565/F - SUFTON RISE, MORDIFORD, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4EN.

Councillor DW Greenow, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised the he lived near to the application site.

12. S123565/F - SUFTON RISE, MORDIFORD, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4EN.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

12. S123565/F - SUFTON RISE, MORDIFORD, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4EN.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

13. 130060/F - LAND SOUTH OF GREYTREE ROAD, GREYTREE, ROSS ON WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

13. 130060/F - LAND SOUTH OF GREYTREE ROAD, GREYTREE, ROSS ON WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

13. 130060/F - LAND SOUTH OF GREYTREE ROAD, GREYTREE, ROSS ON WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2013.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To seek Committee resolution to add an informative note regarding the statement of positive and proactive working as required by article 31 1 (cc) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Order) 2010/2184 (as amended).

Prior to the debate the Vice-Chairman, Councillor BA Durkin, left the chamber as he had recently spoken in objection to the application and wished to avoid any accusation of pre-determination or bias.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised the Committee that an informative note in respect of positive and proactive working had been omitted on the decision for Pennoxstone Court. He drew Members’ attention to the Update Sheet and advised them that the recommendation had changed following further legal advice.

RESOLVED:

That the Council recognises that it issued an incorrect decision notice that did not include the Statement of Positive and Proactive Working but that this was not prejudicial to the decision to refuse planning permission at the Planning Committee meeting on 24 April 2013

Proposed erection of 30 no dwellings including 10 affordable units and associated works to provide new access and road.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Vaughan, representing Pyons Group Parish Council, and Mrs McLeod, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The Parish Council were in support of development within the village but had concerns in respect of the proposed site.

·         The application would usually be deemed as contrary to Policy H7 of the UDP.

·         The NPPF gave a presumption in support of sustainable development due to the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing supply.

·         The emerging NPPF promoted localism, the Committee should note the concerns of the local residents and the Parish Council.

·         The only Neighbourhood Plan in the Country had recently been adopted in Cumbria, the Parish Council should not be criticised for not having an adopted Plan.

·         The parish Plan promoted a central hub and did not support development outside of the settlement boundary.

·         The Committee refused the previous application on the site.

·         Growth was needed in the County however any growth had to be right.

·         Further discussion regarding the Section 106 agreement was welcomed.

The debate was opened with two Members of the committee noting the concerns of the Parish Council and the local residents but advising that the committee’s decision should be based on material planning considerations. It was noted that the current application had addressed a number of the issues that had led to a previous application on the site being refused. The applicant’s offer to investigate an alternative method of drainage, such as a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme, was welcomed, with one of the members stating that this should form a condition if planning permission was granted.

Another Member of the Committee drew Members attention to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that brownfield sites should be developed ahead of greenfield sites. He noted the concerns of the Parish Council and considered that the application should be refused. This view was supported by other Members of the Committee who were of the opinion that considerable weight should be given to the views of the Parish Council and the local residents in determining the application.

Members continued to discuss the application and had a number of concerns regarding the drainage issues on the site. It was noted that the neighbouring residents had taken a number of photographs showing the site in a waterlogged state, it was also noted that the drainage report had noted that there were issues regarding drainage on the site however the report had concluded that these issues could be overcome. Further concern was expressed regarding the lack of children’s play provision on the site; the density of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

Variation of Condition 15 of planning permission DCNC0009/1820/CD.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the application had been withdrawn at the applicant’s request.

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission DCNC0009/1820/CD.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the application had been withdrawn at the applicant’s request.

Variation of Condition 14 of planning permission DCNC0009/1820/CD.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Churchill, representing Avenbury Parish Council, and Mr Morris, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Davies, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors A Seldon and JG Lester, the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         Unfortunately relationships between the applicant and the neighbouring resident had broken down, this was regrettable.

·         There were issues regarding parking at the site, this was recognised.

·         The Hope Centre had provided a valuable resource to the community since its inception in 1999.

·         The centre had started as a portakabin on the site.

·         The concerns of the neighbouring resident needed to be addressed.

·         There were funding difficulties for the centre and alternative methods of income needed to be investigated.

·         The centre needed to remain viable.

Councillor PM Morgan, the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing, addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the application. She advised Members that Children’s Centres ensured that Children had the best possible start in life and urged all Councillors to get involved with their local centre. She added that finances were a concern for Children’s Centres in the current economical climate and therefore they needed to adapt and be more flexible. Councillor Morgan left the meeting at the conclusion of her submission and took no further part in the meeting.

Members discussed the application and although they noted the neighbouring resident’s concerns they were of the opinion that the application should be granted.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer advised that although the premises was not licenced they could apply for a temporary event notice if they wished to offer licenced activities. In response to a further question she advised that the application had only come before the Committee as the Council had an involvement in the application.

In response to a question regarding the boundary fence, the Development Manager advised that the fence had been erected in accordance with the previous conditions and that the ombudsman had also supported this view. In addition to this point he added that the fence was two metres in height with an additional one metre of netting and that it did not act as an acoustic barrier. He advised Members that if they were concerned about the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring resident they could choose to allow a temporary permission to allow sufficient time to monitor the site.

Members noted that there was a difficult relationship between the parties and noted that this was a concern. They also had concerns regarding the fence but decided against granting a temporary planning permission on the site.

Councillors Seldon and Lester were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

Outline for the erection of one single storey dwelling and double garage with all matters reserved.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Read, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Snell, one of the applicants, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The merits of the application were evident.

·         The modern residential development in the immediate vicinity was a consequence of a redevelopment of a historic poultry farmyard (i.e..a brownfield site). This development therefore represented a logical infill of a residual gap

·         The application proposed a single storey dwelling on a brownfield site.

·         The application complied with the NPPF as it would enhance the rural community.

·         The site was sustainable due to its close proximity to Ross-on-Wye.In terms of the context of Herefordshire being a rural county the site was considered to be sustainable.

·         There would not be any overlooking issues in respect of Townsend Cottage, whose owners had written in support of the application.

·         The Parish Council supported the application.

·         The development should be viewed as infill and not development in the open countryside.

·         The application was not detrimental to the AONB.

·         The Core Strategy promoted localism.

Members discussed the application and considered that it was not an isolated site as there were a number of dwellings nearby. It was also noted that the surrounding area was a redundant poultry farm and that paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework encouraged the development of brownfield sites.

The Committee noted that there were two trees on the site that were worthy of retention. They requested that an appropriate condition be added to the resolution to protect these trees in the event of the application being approved.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised Members that they were required to determine the application in accordance with policy, he asked them to give their reasons for approving the applications based on the three reasons for refusal as set out in the recommendation.

The Committee considered that the application should be approved as a departure from Unitary Development Plan Policy H7 based on the Council’s current lack of a five year housing supply. It was also noted that the application related to the infilling of a small gap between dwellings in a sustainable location. Members did not consider that the development would harm the character or appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They also noted that paragraph 55 of the NPPF would be in support of the application subject to an ‘exceptional design’, however the Development Manager advised the Committee that this would not be appropriate as the application was solely for outline permission and therefore a final design had not been submitted.

Councillor Durkin was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

Erection of 12 no. affordable units with associated access, landscaping and allotments.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Shearer, representing Dormington and Mordiford Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There had been a considerable amount of consultation undertaken by the Parish Council to ensure the application was appropriate.

·         The application had been amended during the application process to take into account concerns raised.

·         The site was less than one mile away from Mordiford.

·         The Parish Plan for Mordiford was adopted in 2006.

Members noted that the application had the support of the majority of the local residents and that a great deal of work had been undertaken by the Parish Council in bringing forward a suitable application to address the housing needs for the residents of Mordiford.

It was noted that the application encompassed a number of features such as allotments, affordable housing, hedgerow retention, sustainable building standards, and a children’s play area.

The provision of bungalows on the site was welcomed with the Committee noting that this could make additional family homes available within the locality.

Members did have one area of concern regarding the narrow footpath and requested that this matter be investigated further by the highways department to ensure pedestrian safety was not compromised.

Councillor Hardwick was given the opportunity to close the debate but chose to make no additional statement.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B07 Section 106 Agreement

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         G10 Landscaping scheme

5.         G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

6.         I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

7.         The recommendations set out in the ecologist’s report dated December 2012 should be followed. Prior to commencement of development, an ecological enhancement scheme based on these recommendations shall be submitted to the Local Planning authority for written approval. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. 

8.         I20 Scheme of surface water drainage

9.         H03 Visibility splays (2.4m x 210m)

10.       H09 Driveway gradient

11.       H11 Parking - estate development (more than one house)

12.       H18 On site roads - submission of details (including outfall arrangements and piping of the roadside ditch)

13.       H21 Wheel washing

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

15.       H19 On site roads - phasing

16.       I51 - Details of slab levels

17.       I55 - Site Waste Management

18.       The allotments and play area hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.

Erection of 14 no. semi-detached and detached dwellings.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Wareing, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Goodwin, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RL Mayo, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The community was not in support of the application with 150 letters of objection being received by the planning department.

·         The part of the site subject to the application had not been identified in the UDP or the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

·         The site fell within the AONB.

·         There were issues regarding the site boundary as set out in the application.

·         There were traffic concerns in the area, the traffic survey was not accurate.

·         The application would result in significant overlooking for the residents of Belle View.

·         The development fell one dwelling short of the threshold to require affordable housing.

·         Consultation dates had been changed throughout the process resulting in confusion to the local residents.

·         The application should be refused.

Councillor CM Bartrum, the other local ward member, also made additional comments, including:

·         The NPPF introduction stated that it ‘allowed people and communities back into planning.’

·         The previous application was refused due to the design, scale and layout.

·         The application was contrary to UDP policies DR1, H13, H19, LA1, LA2, and LA6.

·         The application was also contrary to the NPPF.

·         The scale had not been altered since the previous application and the proposed layout was now worse than the original application due to the loss of the play area.

·         The NPPF stated that ‘better lives for ourselves doesn’t mean worse lives for future generations’.

·         Although the development fell below the threshold for affordable housing, it could still be required if the development was deemed as phased application.

·         The voluntary contribution was significantly lower than what would have been required under a Section 106 agreement.

The debate was opened by a number of Members speaking in objection to the application. It was considered that the application would result in overdevelopment of the site; that the application was contrary to policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan and that it was contrary to paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Concern was also expressed regarding the applicants offer of £5000 as it was not considered that the threshold for a Section 106 agreement was not appropriate. Members noted that if the Community Infrastructure Levy had been in place the applicant would have been required to pay approximately £140,000. The offer of £5000 was therefore seen as insufficient.

Members also had concern regarding the possibility of a staged development, as the current application fell below the affordable housing threshold, and sought assurances that this would not be permitted.

Members continued to discuss the policy issues and stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

Date of next site inspection:   4 June 2013

Date of next meeting:              5 June 2013