To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Simeon Cole and Clare Davies.

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

There were no substitutes.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Bruce Baker explained that he had received significant correspondence from a number of interested parties to application 242783 – Land South of Leadon Way (A417) and East of Dymock Road (B4216), Ledbury, Herefordshire.

There was one further declaration of interest; please see minute 28 below.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2025 be approved.

Proposed erection of 31 no. key worker dwellings, including access from Clubtail Drive with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rawlings, the applicant's agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the application proposed that all traffic would be directed via Clubtail Drive. This would result in excessive traffic movements which would undermine local highway safety. Clubtail Drive was a residential street and was not suitable for the proposed levels of traffic. There was a risk to families using local pavements and highways and it was felt that the application had been rushed. The committee was urged to reject the application until safer proposals could be considered. It was felt that the application had been brought to the current meeting with undue haste and the parish council had been sidelined. Clarification had been provided to a local objector that the access to the park and ride had been approved under a previous application and there was no process to challenge this earlier decision. It was explained that there was a process that could be followed, allowing the Secretary of State to revoke permission in exceptional circumstances.

The committee debated the application. It was noted that a decision on the application had been deferred from an earlier meeting to allow for improvements to be made to the landscape scheme associated with the application. It was felt that the applicant had responded positively to the comments of the committee and had introduced additional planting and landscaping to soften the overall appearance of the development within its setting.

The local ward member was offered the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and councillor Bruce Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer's recommendation.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Country Act to secure the delivery of affordable housing for sole occupancy by military personnel (Appendix 2) and the imposition of the conditions detailed below (and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation), that Planning Permission be granted.

A hybrid planning application comprising: An application for full planning permission for the erection of a Day Nursery (Use Class E (f)) and Foodstore (Use Class E (a)) including access, car parking landscaping and associated work; & an application for outline planningpermission for the erection of a medical centre (Use Class E(e)), withaccess to be determined and all other matters reserved.

Application approved with a change to conditions.

Councillor Stef Simmons left the committee to act as the local ward member for the following application

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Ingram, from the Cooperative group, and Ms Stephenson, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Mitchell spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that in principle the local community supported the provision of a  medical centre and nursery. It was recognised that there was a need for better healthcare facilities in Ledbury. It was further recognised that a food store could bring benefits as the location of the new shop would provide for new developments within that part of the town and bring more jobs. It was acknowledged that a new shop on the outskirts of Ledbury would result in the loss of some trade from shops within the centre of town.

There was an adjournment at 11:07 a.m.; The meeting reconvened at 11:32 a.m.

Councillor John Stone left the meeting at 11:32 a.m.

Following the adjournment the local ward member continued her address to the committee. It was recognised that there were access issues concerning the site that required finalisation. Noise impact concerns remained with the site and the committee was asked to clarify with officers how this would be conditioned. The recommendation of the case officer was accepted.

In accordance with the council's constitution the adjoining ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the new store would have an adverse impact on the vitality of local retail and the viability of Ledbury town centre. The impact of the application was a deep concern to business owners in Ledbury and there was no adequate mitigation proposed to address this impact. Submissions by the local trade association and the ALDI supermarket were of significance and should be given due weight by the committee. The credibility of the retail impact assessment was questioned given the data used in calculation but assessments of the impact of the new shop on businesses in Ledbury demonstrated an adverse effect. The potential use of private financial initiative (PFI) for the health centre and its relocation out of the centre of Ledbury was questioned. The committee was urged to reject the application due to the adverse impact on Ledbury town centre which was contrary to: core strategy policies SS1, LB1; Ledbury neighbourhood development plan policy EE 3.1; and paragraphs 85 to 90 of the national planning policy framework.

The committee debated the application; during the debate the following principal points were raised:

• support for the new store had been expressed by local residents;
• the absence of a noise condition was questioned;
• the construction of a new healthcare facility in the town was a benefit in the locality;
• it was felt that the new store would serve new housing developments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Application for approval of reserved matters following Outline 152041(Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application)) for the approval of Appearance, Landscaping and Scale.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Hammond, spoke on behalf of Ashperton parish council, Mr Gardiner, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Davies, applicant, spoken support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that it was recognised the application would provide housing in Ashperton at a proportionate level. It was explained that for such an application there had been a significant level of public objection and it was recognised that the application had been in process for a significant period of time which had led to uncertainty. Two elements of the proposal required clarity: the compatibility of the proposals in the current application with the outline permission already granted; and the potential presence of matters that should have been in the outline permission now appearing at the reserved matters stage. Concerns regarding the current application related to the housing proposed which was felt to be out of keeping and the scale and levels of the housing which could be obtrusive within the landscape.

The committee debated the application. The following principal points were raised:

• Concern was expressed that due to the topography of the site and local area the proposed ridge heights of the houses in the application would be excessive and dominate the landscape, particularly when viewed from the road. There was concern that the earthworks proposed in the application would result in the properties being prominent and imposing in the landscape.
• The style of the properties in the application was felt to be bland and uniform which was out of keeping with the individual and varied styles of housing within the local area.
• The committee sought clarification over concerns raised with consistency between the outline and reserved matters applications.

The development manager provided the following clarification:

• Officers were content that the current application was consistent with the outline application approved previously.
• Conditions proposed in the report required detail of the impact of earthworks on the grading of the landform before such works were commenced.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed the approval of the application in accordance with the case officer's recommendation. The proposal was not seconded and therefore was not moved.

Councillor Stephen Simmons proposed and councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion that the application be refused due to those reasons set out below:

1. The application fails to provide sufficient information to properly assess and conclude that the scale of the proposed dwellings are acceptable, particularly in relation to their height, bulk and massing within the context of the site’s elevated topography and surrounding built form. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policies SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and Policy D1 of the emerging Ashperton Neighbourhood Development Plan.

2. The proposed design and appearance of the dwellings fails to respond positively to the distinctive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.