The Committee stood in silence in memory of Councillor LO Barnett, Chairman of the Council, who had recently died.

There were no apologies.

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

There were no named substitutes.

Agenda item 7: P141024 Land at Flag Station, Mansell Lacy

Councillor AJM Blackshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the father of one of the applicants through that person’s role as Chairman of the Parish Council and through his own role as ward councillor.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant and some objectors.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor RI Matthews declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant and some objectors.

Agenda Item 8: P141550/O Land West Of Upper Court Road Bosbury

Councillor EMK Chave declared a disclosable pecuniary interest because the Church Commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to her husband regarding his stipend as a Church of England Clergyman and to herself as potentially in receipt of a pension relating to past service as an employee of the Commissioners.  She left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Agenda item 9 – P142450/O Myrtleford Cottage, Ledgemoor, Weobley

Councillor AJM Blackshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant through his role as ward councillor.

Agenda item 10 – P141830/O Court Farm, Much Birch

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reminded Members of the advice note that had been issued by the Assistant Director – Economic, Environment and Cultural Services on the weight that could be given to the submitted Local Plan and emerging neighbourhood plans when considering planning applications.

Proposed erection of 4 nos. poultry buildings, associated feed bins, hardstandings and access road.

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

(Proposed erection of 4 nos. Poultry buildings, associated feed bins, hard-standings and access road.)

The Development Manager 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.  This included a proposed addition to conditions 16 and 17 set out in the recommendation. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Barrett, Clerk to Foxley Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs P Powell and Mr D Palmer, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr J Davenport, the applicant and Mr T Powell, the farmer who would run the poultry unit, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The application raised a number of complex issues and he had consulted widely to gain an understanding of them.

·         He highlighted the consultation summary at section 4 of the report.  He observed that there were no objections from the statutory consultees or from the internal consultees provided certain mitigating action was taken.

·         Foxley Group Parish Council had raised no objections.

·         Bishopstone Parish Council had opposed the application. However, he considered that the grounds for their opposition were addressed by measures proposed in the report.

·         The National Farmers Union supported the application, commenting on population growth and the demand for chicken meat. 

·         Cargill made a significant contribution to the local economy.

·         The Campaign to Protect Rural England had asked that consideration be given to the impact on tourism.  In his view the letter of support referred to at paragraph 5.7 of the report demonstrated that poultry sheds were not incompatible with tourism.

·         The points raised in letters of objection were addressed within the report.

·         The Environmental Permit had been issued for a development of up to 250,000 birds.  The planning application was for 180,000.  Any increase in the size of the development would require a further planning application.

·         The reduction in food miles, sustainability and traceability of food, animal husbandry and health benefits of chicken meat, noting consumer confidence in British chicken,  were arguments in support of the application.

·         The diversification would sustain a respected family business and secure its future.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Concerns from residents about the proximity of the development to their residences were acknowledged.  However, the technical evidence set out in the report and the comments of the Environment Agency suggested that the application could and should be supported.  The officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

A number of points were advanced as grounds for refusing the application and a motion for refusal was moved and seconded:

·                Details of the application had kept changing.

·                There were a number of properties in proximity to the development within 400 metres of the proposed site boundary.

·                The development was in conflict with tourism and the holiday business run from Shetton Barns.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Proposed site for up to 46 dwellings, new access from Upper Court Road, with open space, parking and associated infrastructure.

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

(Proposed site for up to 46 dwellings, new access from upper court road, with open space, parking and associated infrastructure.) 

(Councillor Chave declared a disclosable pecuniary 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 reported that the update included an objection to the application from English Heritage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Whitehead, of Bosbury and Coddington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Hosking, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Simpson, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The Chairman reported that neither Councillor CNH Attwood, nor Councillor AW Johnson were able to attend the meeting.  He had been asked to read a statement on their behalf, in accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution providing for local ward members to speak on applications.

The principal points in the statement were:

The objections from a clear majority of residents fell into 2 main categories:

1.         Scale -Bosbury is a linear village of 100 houses in a conservation area. Remaining homes are scattered in outlying areas.  46 additional houses represents a 46% increase which can only be described as excessive. The village has one oversubscribed school and a pub. No shop, post office or other community asset except a Village Hall.

Almost all residents are in favour of growth and have no in principle objection to the proposed site. The scale of this proposal however would have a dramatic effect on the village and could certainly not be described as sustainable by any meaningful definition.  There are numerous small sites suitable for development within the village which, collectively, could satisfy growth requirements in a much more absorbable way.

2.         Flooding - Despite claims by the Environment Agency and Severn Trent to the contrary, flooding is a serious problem in this low lying village.   The proposed site slopes continuously down to the access lane. That lane slopes down from the main road to its lowest point immediately adjacent to the school and then rises beyond that point.  The attenuation pond would be sited further along the lane, on higher ground.  The school playground already floods from run off from the proposed site. Additional run off from this development is certain hence the attenuation pond. The pond is to be sited on higher ground yet the Environment Agency do not consider it to be a problem.

Both scale and flood control could be accommodated by a reduced number of houses all sited on the higher side of the field with the lower half reserved for a proper sized pond for flood attenuation.  This is where the water currently collects and will increasingly collect without effective attenuation should this application be approved.

The Committee was requested to reject the proposal and ask the applicant to modify the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Site for erection of dwelling.

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

(Site for erection of dwelling.)

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 C Goldsworthy, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The applicant needed support to continue to live independently.  Her daughter, a nurse at Hereford hospital, could provide this if the proposed dwelling were permitted.

·         The Parish Council supported the application.  There were letters both in support and in objection.

·         There was a satisfactory access.

·         He considered the site was within a settlement and did not agree that it contravened policy H7.  He considered the development represented sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  Such developments of good design would contribute to the housing supply.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The view was expressed that the development did represent sustainable development and should be supported.  It should be acknowledged that there would be reliance on use of the private car in some locations.

·         The importance of meeting social need by facilitating provision of care and support to people in their own homes also needed to be given weight. 

·         It was important that where an exception to policy was made the design of any property was of the highest standard.

·         In relation to whether an annex should be considered rather than a separate dwelling the Development Manager commented that a condition to that effect could not be sustained if circumstances changed given that the proposal was entirely self contained and set within its own plot.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that he considered the development was sustainable.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary and to finalise the drafting of the decision on the grounds that the development was sustainable and that it would provide social benefit facilitating the provision of care and support.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received.  The Planning Committee considered that the modest economic and social benefits that can be attributed to the development would outweigh the unsustainable location in this instance.  It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site for 18 no. dwellings, associated car parking, access and landscaping.

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

(Site for 18 no.Dwellings, associated car parking, access and landscaping.)

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs D Hadley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr D Benbow, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council had no objection.

·         There were concerns about the access which was a narrow road in disrepair.  There was a Doctors’ surgery in that location and insufficient parking space.

·         Traffic would have to queue on the A49 waiting to turn into the narrow access road.

·         Residents of the development would have to cross a fast stretch of the A49 to access amenities.

·         He hoped the applicant would release land to provide more parking spaces and so reduce queuing.  He also hoped the applicant would ensure the development was of good design and constructed to code 4 of the code for sustainable homes standard. 

The debate opened and the consensus was that the development was sustainable, on a brownfield site, would meet a housing need, and should be supported.

It was requested that efforts be made to seek to secure a crossing over the A49 and a 30mph speed limit.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the draft Heads of Terms appended to the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary:

Date of next site inspection – 9 December 2014

Date of next meeting – 10 December 2014