Apologies were received from Councillors J Hardwick and A Seldon.

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

Councillor WLS Bowen substituted for Councillor J Hardwick.

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

Agenda item 7: 163707 – Land opposite Mill House Farm, Fownhope

Councillors PGH Cutter and EJ Swinglehurst declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2017.

It was reported that the description of the agenda item in draft minute 134 to which the declaration of interest referred to related was incorrect.  It should refer to Agenda item 10: 163364 – land south of ladywell lane, Kingsthorme.

The Lead Development Manager commented with reference to minute number 139 – 153330 – land adjacent to village hall, Aymestrey, that Historic England had expressed some concerns about the application and the matter would therefore be brought back to the Committee for consideration.  That report would also include an update on housing provision in Aymestrey.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April, 2016 be approved as a correct record, as amended, and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman observed that this was the Committee’s final meeting of the municipal year.  He thanked members and officers for their work and also thanked the public for attending and participating through the public speaking process.

Proposed residential development of 10 open market family homes and 5 affordable homes.

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

(Proposed residential development of 10 open market family homes and 5 affordable homes.)

The Acting 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.  He confirmed that the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) had indicated that the impact on the heritage assets was at the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs D Quayle of Fownhope Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr F Hemming, a local resident and chairman of the Fownhope Carbon Reduction Action Group spoke in objection.  Mr J Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen spoke in the role of the local ward member, having acted in that capacity on behalf of local residents for this planning application because the local ward member, Councillor J Hardwick, was the applicant. 

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was for a much smaller development than that refused by the Committee in February 2017.

·        The proposal was supported by the Parish Council and consistent with the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It would provide 5 affordable houses in perpetuity.

·        The village was in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  Landscaping proposals and design would improve the setting of the neighbouring Scotch Firs development.

·        It had been suggested that the orientation of the buildings should be changed to benefit from solar gain and make best use of natural resources.  However, this would make the development more intrusive on Scotch Firs and increase the extent of the excavation required.

·        The proposed S106 agreement would provide for an extended 30mph speed limit and a range of other benefits including a new footpath.  He noted that the possibility of providing a footpath alongside the main road itself had been discussed and dismissed.

·        The scheme was well designed and every effort had been made to make it attractive and welcoming entrance to the village.

·        The landowner intended to manage the proposed orchard as part of the estate in accordance with a biodiversity and landscape enhancement plan.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal and it was consistent with the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  There were no objections from the statutory consultees.

·        The hope was expressed that the applicant would consult the Parish Council over the management of the proposed orchard.  A Member expressed the view that there was, however, no need to seek to place any formal requirement upon the landowner in this regard. 

·        The proposal would soften the entrance to the village and make a valuable contribution to it.

·        The scheme was designed to meet the needs of local people.

·        Development within the AONB had to meet a high benchmark.  It was considered that the revised scheme was not a major development given the size of Fownhope and was policy compliant.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

A retrospective planning application for two  small outhouses, changes to the entrance on to the public road, the inclusion of a wood burning stove, the erection of fences outside the development area and the resultant increase in the curtilage.

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

(A retrospective planning application for two small outhouses, changes to the entrance on to the public road, the inclusion of a wood burning stove, the erection of fences outside the development area and the resultant increase in the curtilage.)

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, R Bradbury representing the Campaign to Protect Rural England, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor CA Gandy, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        Planning permission had been granted in 2005 for a barn conversion in what was a very rural setting of great landscape value.  This had been subject to a number of conditions including the removal of permitted development rights.  She outlined the history of the site which had involved a number of breaches of those conditions.

·        A retrospective application similar to that before the Committee had been refused by officers in February 2016.  Subsequently there had been attempts at enforcement that had gone awry.  Now a further retrospective application had been submitted.  Border Group Parish Council opposed the application.

·        In summary she considered that the applicant had ignored the conditions attached to the original application designed to protect the landscape and this was unacceptable.

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

·        Some support was expressed for the view set out at paragraph 6.14 of the report that on balance the application could be recommended for approval, retaining control of additional development through a condition restricting permitted development rights.

·        Several members took the view that as a matter of principle the conditions should be enforced.  The original application had been for a barn conversion.  Such applications had been permitted as exceptions with the aim of preserving heritage assets.  The purpose of the conditions had been intended to guard against development that would undermine this aim which some of the development which had taken place contrary to those conditions did.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee had to consider the application before it and could not accept some aspects of the development that had taken place and not others.  It also had to be determined on the basis of the policies currently in force.  The applicant had removed the greenhouse and the summerhouse from the application.  Enforcement action was taken by the council but resources did constrain what was practicable, mindful of the County’s rurality.  He confirmed that Parish Councils were requested to inform the authority of any enforcement issues that came to their notice.  He also advised in response to concerns expressed about the fence that had been erected on the property that if the application was refused at appeal the fence would only be reduced by 8 centimetres, the extent to which it exceeded the permitted development limit of 2m.

A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Proposed new build part-earth sheltered dwelling.

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

(Proposed new build part-earth sheltered 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.  He clarified how the planning balance should be undertaken in the light of a recent court case given the council’s lack of a five year housing land supply.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor JG Lester spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He disagreed with the interpretation of policy as set out in the report. In particular he believed the proposal did fall to be considered under policy RA2 rather than RA3. A map of developments within the area submitted as part of the application showed the application site to be at the heart of the historic pattern of development. 

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal as did he.  There were 18 letters of support.  There were no objections to the proposal from consultees and no letters of objection.

·        The proposal represented the type of organic growth favoured by the local community.

·        The authority had recently granted permission for two developments in the area comprising 40 houses, one development of 28 houses and one of 12 houses.  The application site was 2 ½ minutes walking distance by road and 2 minutes walk from the centre of Stoke Lacy.  A kissing gate leading from the application site would bring the residents out in front of the site where the 28 homes were to be developed.  It was not an isolated site. It was a sustainable location. 

·        The scheme was a high quality sustainable scheme.

·        The application was by a local family.

·        It was unjust to argue that the minimum target for housing provision in Stoke Lacy had been exceeded and that this militated against the provision of a single dwelling, the approval for 40 dwellings having significantly exceeded the minimum target.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        There was support for the local ward member’s argument that the development was sustainable and should be considered under policy RA2.

·        In the absence of a Neighbourhood Development Plan the policy fell to be considered solely against the Core Strategy policies.  The settlement pattern of Stoke Lacy was typical of many Herefordshire villages in that it was not a nucleated village with a settlement around it.  There was a risk of setting a precedent for isolated developments of this type if the application were approved.

In response to questions the Lead Development Manager commented:

·        The Rural Areas Site Development Plan, once approved, would govern development of areas such as Stoke Lacy where there was no NDP.  In such cases a settlement boundary would be drawn and development considered within and adjacent to that boundary.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Date of next site inspection – 13 June 2017

Date of next meeting – 14 June 2017