Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, DW Greenow and PJ Watts.

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

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

Councillor AN Bridges declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest for agenda item 8:  130616/F Land at Mill Street, Leominster and left the meeting for the duration of that item.

Councillor FM Norman declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest for agenda item 7:  123317/0 Land at Southern Avenue, Leominster on the grounds that her husband had registered an objection to the application.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 December, 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

To be noted.  (Report to Follow)

Class A 1 food store, petrol filling station and associated parking and servicing facilities, resizing and refurbishment of two Class B units and associated highway works.

The application was refused 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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis, spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council expressing opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Mifflin spoke on behalf of the Friends of Leominster Action Group in objection to the application.  Mr A Brodie, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors RC Hunt and PJ McCaull, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor PJ McCaull commented on a number of issues including:

·         There was already retail development on the Southern Avenue site.

·         There was good pedestrian access from the site to the Town Centre and public transport.

·         There was good vehicular access to the site from the A49.

·         The impact on small traders in the town centre was being overstated.  

·         A new Supermarket would offer improved choice and value for money.  There was public support.

·         A supermarket would create employment opportunities.

Councillor RC Hunt commented on a number of issues including:

·         The existing supermarkets were very busy and increasing the amount of competition between businesses, including for petrol, was important.

·         Access to the site was very good.

·         There were only two available sites and the alternative site before the Committee for consideration was impractical.

The Chairman emphasised that the two applications for supermarkets in Leominster on the agenda would be considered in turn as separate applications on their own merits.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

A question was asked about the location of housing development in Leominster proposed in the core strategy.  In response officers stated that the Core Strategy did identify significant housing provision to the South of Leominster.  However, the Core Strategy carried no weight at the present time and could not form part of the Committee’s consideration.

It was noted that a proposed Section 106 agreement was appended to the report.

In support

·         There was demand for a large food store to meet residents’ needs.  Smaller sites were not always viable options.

·         Access to the development was good.

·         The development would bring in trade from the fringes of Hereford.

·         People would remain loyal to existing traders in the Town.

·         The store would be important for Leominster’s future development.

·         The withdrawal of the Environment Agency’s objections was a positive step.

In Opposition

·         The development had the potential to generate other retail development on the site which would in time lead to it becoming an alternative to the Town Centre as a shopping destination. 

·         The development was out of the Town Centre, was unsustainable and would increase reliance on private car use.  It was unlikely that those visiting the store would necessarily make a connected trip to the Town Centre.

·         Whilst there may not be alternative sites for a large development of the type proposed, there were more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Hybrid planning application (part detailed/part outline) for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and mixed use development of the site to provide a retail store, petrol filling station, residential and associated works.

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

(Councillor AN Bridges declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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.

He highlighted that the principle of residential units was not opposed in outline as part of the site had been allocated for such housing. The size of the retail development was a fundamental concern.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council, opposing the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of the Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection.  Mr A Ingram the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Jones CBE and FM Norman, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor FM Norman commented on a number of issues including:

·         The size of the proposed store was colossal making it in effect a one stop shop.  It would have an unacceptable impact on the Town Centre.  This was supported by independent evaluation.

·         The loss of trade by the existing supermarkets in the Town would reduce linked trips.

·         The proposed petrol station would also affect other businesses.

·         The development of an out of centre Supermarket at Llandriddrod Wells was an example of the harmful effects such a development could have on a Town Centre.

·         The proposal was contrary to policy S7 in that it would jeopardise the character of Leominster, potentially putting the Town Centre’s listed buildings occupied by traders at risk.

·         There were concerns that the site was at risk of flooding.

·         Highway safety was a concern.  A considerable amount of traffic including heavy goods vehicles used Mill Street and account also did not appear to have been taken of traffic visiting Brightwells auctioneers.  The intention to increase the length of time for which the gates at the Mill Street level crossing were closed would lead to increased tailbacks.  Network Rail had originally proposed that a bridge over the railway would be needed.  Their current view that a roundabout would suffice was surprising.

·         The Town Council and many residents objected to the proposal.  She was unaware of any public support for the application.  It was therefore contrary to the Parish Plan.

Councillor P Jones spoke in support of the application.  He stated that Supermarkets were liked by customers and the Town would benefit from the proposal.  He acknowledged that there were a number of concerns including the volume of traffic using Mill Street, in particular given the increased time for which the level crossing would be closed.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The focus needed to be on the needs of Leominster and its residents.  The sheer scale of the proposal and the detrimental impact it would have on trade in the Town Centre as a consequence was a major concern.  A major retail development of this scale,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Change of use of redundant farm buildings into 3 residential cottages to be used as holiday lets. Erection of 5 demountable geodomes (or shepherds huts). Purpose built shower/wc adjacent to farm buildings (to replace soon to be demolished new build stable block). Communal lounge/dining and kitchen for geodome guests in existing buildings.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr W Bullough spoke on behalf of Clifford Parish Council opposing the Scheme.  Mrs P Cooke, a resident spoke in objection.  Mrs K Smolas the applicant spoke in support of her application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PD Price the local ward member, spoke on the application

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The latest proposal was different to the applications previously refused

·         The area was significant and special in terms of its ecology and environment. 

·         Following the refusal of previous applications, the applicant had discussed the latest proposal with local people.  However, many still objected.  A few, in particular businesses who thought they might benefit supported the Scheme.  It was noted that some views were not consistent with the actual application.

·         The access was poor and there was some uncertainty and inconsistency in the documentation over the number of traffic movements that would in fact take place.  There was little if any scope to improve the access because the land that would be required was either common land or privately owned.  He questioned the extent to which a traffic management plan would be enforceable and noted that any enforcement would only take place after the event.

·         There was concern over the sufficiency of the water supply.  He questioned the accuracy of the Environment Agency’s analysis.

·         There was concern about the noise that would be associated with the development.

·         Visit Herefordshire’s reference to “exploiting” the County’s assets as set out at paragraph 5.7 of the report was unhelpful.

·         He believed that the number of visitors would need to increase from the stated level if it were to meet the income forecasts accompanying the application.  He was therefore also concerned about the longer term implications if planning permission were to be granted.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the access and the number of vehicle movements.  It was suggested that the application could be approved if a suitable traffic management plan was in place and enforced.  It was proposed that the details of a Plan should be discussed with the local ward member to ensure that they were as resilient as possible.

·         Members questioned the enforceability of a traffic management plan.  Officers commented that the Traffic management Plan would form part of the S106 agreement.  Any proposal to increase traffic movements would require mitigation measures to be put in place before this could proceed.  Enforcement of a traffic management plan would be reactive and rely on local representations, notably from the Parish Council

·         The applicant had sought to address the concerns expressed by the Committee in refusing previous applications.

·         There was a need for diversification but it must be sympathetic to its location.

·         That the application was not in keeping with the location and its context.

·         The financial forecast was optimistic based on the number of people it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Date of next site inspection – 28 January 2014

Date of next meeting – 29 January 2014

The Planning Committee noted the date of the next meeting.