Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, BA Durkin. J Hardwick, JW Hope MBE, MAF Hubbard, JG Lester, RI Matthews RL Mayo and FM Norman.

To receive details of any Member 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 JM Bartlett attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor FM Norman, Councillor CM Bartrum substituted for Councillor PA Andrews, Councillor WLS Bowen for Councillor J Hardwick, Councillor ARC Chappell for Councillor RI Matthews, Brig PJones for Councillor JG Lester and Councillor RJ Phillips for Councillor JW Hope.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

Proposed construction of earth slurry lagoon.

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

(Proposed construction of earth slurry lagoon.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Hawnt, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr A Murphy, 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 KS Guthrie spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         The scale of the development was large. 

·         The slurry pit was situated on the brow of a very steep hill.

·         There was concern about the potential for pollution.  The pit had been constructed on porous rock and three expert reports had highlighted the harmful effects of a leak.  If there was a leak, local boreholes would be contaminated and there was concern that the leakage would flow downhill into the village.

·         The banking surrounding the lagoon was not sound. This could compromise any liner put in place.  If a leak were to occur it would then be too late to seek to retrieve the situation.

·         There was also concern about the smell that the lagoon would cause.

·         She cited a number of policies that she considered formed grounds for refusal: S2, DR1,DR2, DR4, DR7, DR8, DR11, E13, M3, M5, M7, LA2, LA5, NC1 and Arch1.  The development was also contrary to the three core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to sustainable development. 

·         In short, the development was wrong, in the wrong place and would have an adverse effect upon the local community.

Councillor JW Millar, as adjoining local ward member, also spoke on the application.  He made the following principal points:

·         The original retrospective application had been refused on eleven grounds. Only six of these had been fully addressed with the remainder addressed only to some extent.

·         Whilst Marden Parish Council supported the application, Bodenham Parish Council remained opposed to it, requiring assurance that all eleven grounds for refusal had been fully addressed.

·         There was continuing concern about the risk of leakage. The original excavation had broken through a porous limestone layer.  The proposal to install an artificial sealed liner was not infallible.  Even with a robust leak detection system there was concern that remedial action could not be taken swiftly enough to prevent pollution.

·         The standard of work undertaken to date had been poor.  Trees had been damaged.  The sides of the pit were collapsing. No archaeological work had been carried out. He did not have confidence in the quality of future work. 

·         The development presented a risk to the area.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         There was concern about the stability of the land and the prevention of future landslips.

·         An alternative site should be considered.

·         There was doubt about the ability to guarantee the prevention of leakage given that seals on liners did fail.

·         Farmers had a duty of care to their neighbours who appeared not to have been consulted about the development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Site for proposed erection of 52 no. residential dwellings, parking, landscaping, drainage and other associated engineering works.  Vehicular access from A49.

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

(Site for proposed erection of 52 no. residential dwellings, parking, landscaping, drainage and other associated engineering works.  Vehicular access from A49.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Millmore of Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Weaver, 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 SJ Robertson spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had objected to the development, as summarised at paragraph 6.15 of the report, referring to policies that directed refusal of development that would adversely affect either the overall character of the landscape or its key features.

·         The site had been assessed via the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as having major constraints due to landscape sensitivity;

·         The development would represent urbanisation, spoiling the rural setting.

·         The Parish Council objected to the development.

·         St Bartholomew’s Church, Holmer was described in the report by the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) as being of exceptional importance and significance.  Its setting would be adversely affected by the development. 

·         The development was at odds with the general pattern of development in the local area.

·         The A49 was busy with fast moving traffic.  She questioned paragraph 6.19 which stated that accessibility could be achieved through non-car borne access to amenities.

·         Negotiations with the Highways Agency were ongoing about the A49.  She expressed a number of concerns about the proposed access to the development.

·         She questioned the pressure the development would place on schools. Holmer School was not referred to in the S106 agreement and she requested involvement in any future discussions on that agreement.

·         There were ongoing sewer problems which the development could only exacerbate.

·         If the application were to be approved she requested that the developer provide money to expand the burial ground.

·         The development would place a high dependence on the car, was not sustainable and therefore paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework did not apply.

·         The application should be refused on numerous policy grounds including policies LA 3 and LA4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         It was requested that regular updates on the five year housing land supply should be provided to the Committee given the weight reports coming before the Committee recommended should be attached to the absence of that land supply.

·         The Section 106 agreement offered a number of positive elements.

·         A number of matters were identified as requiring future consideration including foul water and waste disposal, and the need for design and build to be of good quality and meet environmental requirements.  It was suggested the need to consider these matters might be reflected in the decision notice as informative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

Site for residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated means of access and car parking.

The Committee deferred determination of this application.

(Site for residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated means of access and car parking.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Francis of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr I Smethurst, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Yeoman, Chairman of Ledbury Cricket Club, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors TL Widdows and EPJ Harvey, two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.

CouncillorWiddows commented on a number of issues including:

·         The proposal on the face of it might seem a good deal when considered alongside the relocation of the cricket pitch.  However, he had a number of concerns.

·         The proposal would involve the loss of public open space contrary to policy RST4. 

·         It would also involve the loss of the only pitch where adult football could currently be played.  That alternative facility only had junior pitches.

·         The Town Council was developing a Neighbourhood Plan and wanted to consult on possible housing sites.  The application was therefore premature.

·         He questioned whether the road system could cope with a development of the scale proposed which was also too close to the roundabout where New Street joined the A417.

·         The site to which the cricket club proposed to relocate was not adequate.  Access by means other than car would involve crossing the bypass which had a 60mph speed limit and walking 500m alongside the bypass to the site.

Councillor Harvey commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Town Council and the Core Strategy had identified the possibility of siting housing north of the railway viaduct, with sports provision forming part of that development.  She suggested the proposal was premature adding that she would like to see exploration of all the options as part of the neighbourhood planning process.

·         The proposed access was of concern.  The junction was close to the roundabout where New Street joined the A417and traffic travelled at speed.  There were 50 vehicles per hour at peak travel times and the Full Pitcher pub was open all day.  She considered that the assessment of traffic movements was optimistic and did not take full account of the school run and shopping trips.  She believed there was the possibility of traffic backing up.  If the Committee was minded to refuse or defer determination of the application she could provide policy grounds for doing so.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The fact that there were only six letters of objection to a development of 100 houses suggested that there was support for the application.

·         As paragraph 6.13 of the report stated the site was within the constraint of the A417 which formed a development boundary and was a logical addition to the town.

·         It was important to seek to meet the bulk of the County’s housing shortfall by expansion of the city  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Proposed erection of cricket pavilion, formation of car park and overflow car park and associated engineering works in association with the relocation of Ledbury Cricket Club and the formation of a proposed vehicular access off Orlham Lane to serve the site.

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

(Proposed erection of cricket pavilion, formation of car park and overflow car park and associated engineering works in association with the relocation of Ledbury Cricket Club and the formation of a proposed vehicular access off Orlham Lane to serve the site.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Francis of Ledbury Town Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr J Lightowler, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Ehrlich, Secretary to the Cricket Club, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors TL Widdows and EPJ Harvey, two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Harvey commented on a number of issues including:

·         The proposal provided better provision for the cricket club, but did not provide for replacement of the existing football training pitch.  The NPPF and UDP required that replacement sports facilities should be of a similar or improved standard.

·         There was concern about the access and the width of the verges alongside the road.  A cycle path would have been a preferred solution.  There was concern about junior players being able to cross the 60mph road safely.

CouncillorWiddows commented on a number of issues including

·         There was concern about parking provision at the site.

·         The site was a greenfield site on grade 2 agricultural land on the edge of Town.  There should be more discussion of the options for preserving sporting facilities within the Town

·         The access was flawed.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         Some concerns about highway access were acknowledged.

·         There was no objection from the statutory consultees.  Sport England considered the replacement facilities fit for purpose.

·         If possible, consideration should be given to the provision of a footway and cycleway to the development.

·         The Committee had to consider the suitability of the application before it.  If alternative sites were to emerge in future it was a matter for the developer to consider whether one of those was preferable.

·         There was insufficient car parking.

·         The development provided an opportunity for the cricket club to secure its future.  It also provided scope to develop a sports hub with the Rugby Club.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Widdows supported comments made about the importance of ensuring connectivity to the town through footpath and cycle links.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 – Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 – Development in accordance with approved plans

3          G10 – Landscaping scheme

4.         G11 – Landscaping scheme (implementation)

5.         H05 – Access gates

6.         H13 – Access, turning area and parking

7.         H17 – Junction improvements / off site works

8.         H29 – Secure cycle parking provision

9.         I41 – Scheme of refuse storage (commercial)

10.       The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the ecological enhancements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Date of next site inspection – 3 March 2015

Date of next meeting – 4 March 2015