To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mark Woodall.

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

Councillor Toni Fagan acted as substitute for Councillor Woodall.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on:

i)               25 February 2026; and

ii)              18 March 2026.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 25 February 2026 and 8 March 2026 be approved.

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 planning permission for the erection of a medical centre (Use Class E(e)), with access to be determined and all other matters reserved.

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 a statement was read on behalf of Ms Stephenson, in objection to the application, and Mr Griffiths, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that:

·       The land had been allocated in the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) for medical centre, a nursery and employment provision;

·       The construction of a medical centre was supported locally. The GP surgery had run out of space and required a larger facility;

·       Local residents living close the application site welcomed the provision of a nursery and food store;

·       The food store would provide additional employment to the town;

·       The construction of a new food store would have an impact on the shops within the town centre but the retail assessment had not considered the impact significant;

·       There were concerns that the predominant means of travel to the food store would be by car however it was recognised that walking/cycling access had been included in the application and there was a contribution towards community transport in the section106 agreement;

·       The retention of the hedgerow along Leadon Way was important at a height which screened the development; the requirement for maintenance of 10 years in the conditions should be extended to ensure longer term maintenance;

·       The impact of the operations on local residents posed by the new development was a concern and the impact of lighting on dark skies locally;

·       There was concern that the medical centre may not be built therefore it was important to take forward the construction to safeguard the land that had been allocated for this purpose;

·       It was explained that in the balance it was considered that the benefits to Ledbury posed by the development outweighed the risks therefore the recommendation of the case officer was supported.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the adjoining ward member spoke on the application. In summary she explained:

·       The committee was urged to refuse the application due to an inadequate retail impact assessment; a lack of compliance with policy; and harm to the town centre;

·       The data used in the retail impact assessment was not considered credible and did not provide an accurate assessment on the impact posed to local shops of the new food store;

·       The application was contrary to core strategy policy E2 as the 12 month review process of viability had been inadequate;

·       Core strategy policy E5 had also been breached as the retail impact assessment was inadequate;

·       The application did not accord with NDP policy EE1.2 which was intended for additional health care provision and not the provision of a new supermarket or relocation of existing services out of the town centre;

·       The current location of the GP surgery provided significant footfall to the town centre;

·       Small, independent retailers operated within tight margins and required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Provision of security cameras fixed to the exterior of the building and provision of boundary fencing for safeguarding purposes.

Applications approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendations and changes to conditions.

The 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 Fowler, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. The following principal points were raised:

·       The security cameras on Churchill House were accepted as a necessity to deter crime and anti-social behaviour;

·       There was concern that the proposed fencing would adversely affect the open nature of the park and would deter people from walking through the park to the sensory garden; mitigation was required to ensure people would continue to access the sensory garden;

·       The occupation of the building should help to deter anti-social behaviour therefore the need for the fencing was questioned;

·       Concern had been expressed by local residents that the proposed fencing was utilitarian and ugly in appearance;

·       The fencing was proposed in a conservation area, adjacent to a listed building and needed to be more sympathetic to the sensitive location.

The committee debated the application; there was agreement that there was a need for the installation of CCTV cameras on the building but there was division among the members of the committee concerning the acceptability of the fencing proposed to enclose Churchill House. It was the contention of some members that the height and colour of the fence would not represent an adverse impact on the heritage asset whilst other members felt that the fencing was unnecessary and not in-keeping with the listed building and local area.

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

The development manager explained that a change to the conditions in the report was required; condition 3 (Fencing – Appearance) proposed as part of the listed building consent (251667) required transfer to proposed conditions listed for the full application (251666).

Councillor Stef Simmons and Councillor Dave Davies seconded a motion that applications 251666 and 251667 be approved, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation and subject to the change to conditions as outlined above.

Application 251666 was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

Application 251667 was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

PLANNING APPLICATION (REFERENCE NO. 251666)

1. Time limit for commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (383 – 05; 383 – 06; 383 – 07; 383 – 03; and 383 – 09; 383 – 04 REV B (received via email 26th January 2026) except where otherwise stipulated by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.