Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie, RC Hunt, JG Lester, FM Norman, PJ Watts and DB Wilcox.

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

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

Agenda Item 10: P133440/F & P133445/L Staunton-on-Wye Endowed Primary School, Staunton-on-Wye, Hereford, HR4 7LT

Councillor JW Hope MBE declared a pecuniary interest as a Trustee on the Jarvis Educational Foundation and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 April 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 April 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Demolition of existing buildings, excluding the Grade II listed Tank House, a small lodge and associated substation, and the erection of 25 new dwellings comprising 12 purpose designed units for older residents, 4 open market units and 9 affordable units, plus a retail unit and 46 bed nursing home.  

The application was approved, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He commented that officers agreed with the principle of the proposed development.  However, the harm caused by the proposed loss of the locally important original ‘H’ shaped bottling plant building was of great concern and so significant with regard to the balancing exercise required by the National Planning Policy Framework that the application should be refused.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr E Nash, the Applicant’s architect spoke in support of the Scheme.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AW Johnson and CHN Attwood, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Johnson commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had raised objections to aspects of the particular scheme but was not opposed to the use of the site for housing.

·         There had been only two letters of objection, mainly on design grounds.

·         There were benefits associated with the Scheme including: new houses with a proportion being affordable housing, the prospect of increased trade for the village shop helping to sustain it, and a nursing home.

·         The applicants had made a number of changes to the Scheme to meet the Parish Council’s requirements

·         The principal objection in the report seemed to be the proposal not to retain the former bottling plant building. However, whilst the bottling plant building was a heritage asset he was not aware of any local public wish to retain it.

·         He considered that the local community was in support of the development and the fact that few objections had been received supported this assessment.

Councillor Attwood supported Councillor Johnson’s comments.  He reiterated that the Parish Council had had no objection in principle.  However, there were a number of concerns about the detail of the design and the street scene in this important approach to the village, including the plan that the back gardens of 4 properties faced the street which was considered potentially unappealing.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The local community supported the much needed residential development that the Scheme would provide.

·         Colwall had developed in the period in which the bottling plant was built and the building had local significance.  The report listed a number of bodies who supported the retention of the bottling plant building.  The building had merit and could be retained and converted for other uses.  Consideration also needed to be given to the setting of the Tank House which had been listed by English Heritage.  A use for the Tank House building should also be identified.

·         The bottling plant had been a magnificent industrial building but it did not lend itself to conversion.  It had been compromised by unsympathetic development and it now fronted an industrial estate.

·         It was asked if features of the building could be preserved in a museum or other setting.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that if features were considered worthy of preservation the building should be retained.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

Residential development comprising 20 open market homes and 10 affordable homes.

The application was refused, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which was a resubmission of an application refused by the Committee on 13 November 2013.   Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He commented that the site was considered sustainable in terms of its location and, although not previously developed, the principle of development could be accepted in the context of the housing land supply deficit.  There were no identified significant and demonstrable adverse impacts outweighing the benefits associated with the scheme. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Davies, Vice-Chairman of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms K Rolfe, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Spreckley, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented that the proposed pedestrian access arrangements had been slightly amended.  However, he considered that the new proposals would place pedestrians in an even more vulnerable position.  The Traffic Manager stated at page 75 of the report that the proposed footway widths would fall short of the Council’s desirable standards.

The other grounds the Committee had advanced for refusing the application, concerns over the vehicle access and the impact on historic buildings and their surroundings remained valid. 

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Traffic Manager’s concluding comment in the report was, “The pedestrian connectivity and its impact on travel by sustainable modes remains a concern.”  In the update issued to the Committee he stated that the applicant’s latest proposal for footway improvements “may give pedestrians a false sense of security”.  Several Members stated that they considered the pedestrian access to be of particular concern and did not want the potential for an accident to be on their conscience.

·         Little had changed in the resubmitted application and the grounds for refusal previously advanced and set out in the decision notice appended to the report, unsatisfactory pedestrian access, unsatisfactory vehicular access and the impact on historic buildings and their surroundings remained valid.  It was noted that the ground for refusal previously advanced that the land was potentially contaminated was proposed to be addressed through a condition.

·         The developers had offered little in relation to the design of the Scheme to encourage the Committee to support the development.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that it should be noted that the Traffic Manager had suggested that the applicant investigated the feasibility of the pedestrian access now being proposed, although as reported in the update the Traffic Manager was concerned about the proposal that had come forward.  He acknowledged Members’ concerns about the pedestrian access.  However, he commented that those pedestrian routes were currently in existence and the Committee had to consider whether there was evidence to support a view that the risk posed by the creation of 30 dwellings outweighed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

Various internal works.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

It was observed that no comments had been received from the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings).  The Senior Planning Officer commented that the planning application was of minor significance and removed no features of historical or architectural merit.

RESOLVED:  That listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conversion of existing building and associated works to create 14 net new close care units of accommodation for the elderly; construction of a new build 70 bedroom nursing home; landscaping; amendments to access and car parking; and all other ancillary works.

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

(Councillor JW Hope MBE declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr E Pearson-Gregory of Staunton on Wye Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms A Andrews and Mr A Adamson, residents, spoke in objection.  Mr S Silk, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

It was noted that the local ward member had had a conflict of interest along with many Parish Councillors as a Trustee of the Jarvis Educational Foundation. Councillor PD Price as an adjoining ward member had dealt with representations about the application in the absence of the local ward member.  The Chairman invited Councillor Price to speak on the application as an adjoining ward member.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He had attended a public meeting on the proposed Scheme and he estimated two thirds of those present were opposed to it.  The objectors' views were summarised in the report.

·         The Scheme could give this listed landmark building a future.  It was, however, important for the applicant to demonstrate that the business plan was sustainable.

·         The Scheme would have a significant impact on the community.  There may be some benefits in terms of jobs.  However, staff may well have to travel from outside the area creating additional traffic on a rural road network.

·         There was concern about the additional demand that would be placed on the local GP surgery with no additional funding available to the surgery.

·         There was doubt over the ability of the utilities to service the site.

·         There would be an impact on individual homes and concerns had been expressed that the height of the new building would result in a loss of light for some neighbouring properties.  However, the closest property was 22.5 metres from the development.

·         The case had not been made for the demolition of part of the listed building.

·         The new building was considerably larger than the existing building.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         A good use had been found for the listed building which would preserve and enhance it. The scheme represented sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. 

·         There were no objections from English Heritage.

·         The objections advanced were not sufficient to outweigh the benefit of the development.

Councillor Price was given the opportunity to close the debate but had no additional comment.

RESOLVED:

(A)         In respect of P133440/F:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Date of next site inspection – 13 May 2014

Date of next meeting – 14 May 2014