Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie and JA Hyde.

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

Councillor J Stone substituted for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

Agenda item 7 – 150989 – Land Adjacent to New House Farm and Marden Primary School, Marden

Councillor BA Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest because he had been a Parish Councillor when the application had been discussed and was a resident of Marden.

Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest because the football team of which he was a director had at one time used the football pitches at Marden, but not this season.

Agenda item 10 - 143272 – Stable and Yard North of Mews house, Mordiford

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

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

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee and because he knew the applicant.

Councillor EJ Swinglehurst declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 16 September 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 16 September 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed residential development of up to 90 dwellings, with provision of a site for a community building and associated open public space.

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 90 dwellings with provision of a site for a community building and associated open public space.)

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 particular he noted that the Inspector’s report into the Core Strategy had been received.  The policies of the Core Strategy could now be given significant weight in decision taking. It was noted that this would be the case for a number of applications before the Committee.

The local ward member was unable to attend the meeting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Gladwin of Marden Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr A Price the applicant and Mr M Barry, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·        The proposal appeared to be a logical extension of the village that commanded support.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the pre-application consultation had included the school.  The issue of school capacity had been considered and addressed.

·        The local consultation had been good.

·        Although the development was larger than envisaged in the Neighbourhood Plan it appeared to be acceptable to the community.

·        The density of the development was quite low and this was in its favour.

·        The aim to achieve Passivhaus accreditation was to be welcomed.  It was to be hoped that the aspirations for the development would be fulfilled at the reserved matters stage.

·        The scheme could be considered to be an exemplar for other developments.

·        It was questioned why the application had been brought forward to the Committee on the grounds that it was contrary to policy, given that the Committee had been advised that weight could now be given to the Core Strategy. In addition, if weight could be given to the Core Strategy this must mean that the Council had a five year housing land supply.

·        The Development Manager commented that reports for the Committee had been prepared before the Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy had been received.  On adoption the Core Strategy would identify a 5.24 year housing land supply.  This demonstrated the importance of continuing to grant permission for appropriate housing development.  If Members refused the application the Core Strategy policies would be advanced in defence at any subsequent appeal.

·        Reference was made to an application for housing development previously approved in Kingstone that had meant development would exceed the indicative housing target for Kingstone it was noted that the applicant in that case had given an assurance that the development would be phased to meet the infrastructure available and school capacity. It was asked whether there would be merit in discussing a similar approach in Marden.

·        The Development Manager commented that the Parish Council would have the opportunity to discuss any concerns with the developer at the Reserved Matters Stage.

·        Consideration should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Proposed residential development for 24 dwellings.

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

(Proposed residential development for 24 dwellings)

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.  She commented that it was proposed to amend the draft heads of terms appended to include reference to a traffic regulation order imposing a 30mph speed limit on part of the C1095 under the transport contributions.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs H Philpotts, Clerk to Burghill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs J Helme, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Owen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen spoke on the application on behalf of the local ward member.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal.  It favoured a number of smaller developments in various locations around the village to retain the rural character of the area.

·        A questionnaire as part of the preparation of the village plan had found over 50% of residents were opposed to development in the proposed location.

·        There were concerns about the ability of the mains drainage and sewerage to cope with the new development. Garages at Baker’s furlong had been flooded by sewage.  Welsh Water needed to make improvements.

·        The site consisted of  impermeable clay and drainage was poor.

·        The access was close to the golf club and a dangerous cross roads.  Visibility was not good with dips in the road.  The current 40mph speed limit would have to be reduced if the development proceeded.

·        He questioned the sustainability of the development, noting that shops were some distance away and the car would therefore be the preferred means of travel. 

·        Space was needed between the development and the listed building and other nearby buildings. 

·        There were also questions over the retention of hedgerows and footpath provision.

·        The application was not as straightforward as it might appear at first sight.  Regard should be had to the concerns of the Parish Council and local residents.

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

·        The Parish Council’s preference for several developments of fewer houses would make it harder for Burghill to meet its housing target.

·        The site did have constraints including a listed building and the Welsh Water pipe crossing the site.  Maintaining the required access to pipe would restrict the developable area.

·        It was essential that the arrangements for the management and future maintenance of the proposed attenuation ponds were secured.

·        It was suggested that the first six informatives listed in the recommendation should be changed to conditions to make them binding.  The Development Manager commented that the informatives listed could not be translated into conditions.  However, conditions were already proposed covering many of these aspects.

·        There were too many uncertainties to enable the development to be supported.  In particular there was uncertainty over the management of surface water.

·        The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Proposed residential development of 69 no dwellings of which 24 will be affordable, accompanied by associated infrastructure and public open space.

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

(Proposed residential development of 69 no dwellings of which 24 will be affordable, accompanied by associated infrastructure and public open space.)

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 P Bainbridge of Withington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  S Williams, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He highlighted the Parish Council’s objection to the Scheme.  In particular, he commented that there had been no response to the Parish Council’s support for the principle of the provision of a village green in the centre of the development. The density of the development could be reduced to provide a village green. 

·        A buffer zone between the houses and the main road would be preferable.

·        The C1130 was used by heavy vehicles and they did not adhere to the speed limit.  The Parish Council had requested that consideration be given to a one way system.

·        The Parish Council had stated that part of the application site would in principle provide an acceptable location for development.  The question was whether the detail of the application that had been submitted was acceptable noting that it did not reflect the preferences expressed by the Parish Council including those in relation to layout, density and open space.

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

·        Improved community engagement might well have resulted in a proposal which the local community could support.  It was suggested there had been insufficient consultation.

·        No information had been submitted on the energy efficiency of the proposed housing.

·        The intention that the management of the public open space would be the responsibility of a management company was questioned.  It was requested that the Council’s executive should consider the level of financial contribution the Council would need to secure management of public open space for developments.

·        Differing views were expressed on the benefits or otherwise of village greens in the centre of developments.

·        The proposals for transport infrastructure in the draft heads of terms were welcomed.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was capacity in the school for all year groups.

·        The detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of Orchard view detracted from an otherwise acceptable proposal.

The Development Manager commented that the applicant had consulted extensively and had made changes to the scheme.  However, a point came where an applicant could not make further changes if the scheme were to remain achievable.  At 23 houses per hectare the density of the development was relatively low noting that the density of the development of the adjacent Southbank development was 31 houses per hectare.  Contributions were also offered for transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Proposed earth sheltered dwelling to replace an existing stable and storage building on a previously developed site.

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

(Proposed earth sheltered dwelling to replace an existing stable and storage building on a previously developed site.)

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 G Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development was sustainable.

·        It was designed to sit sympathetically within the landscape and with appropriate landscaping of the site the development would be suitable.

·        The development did not have an impact upon the garden view of Sufton Court.

·        The unregistered parkland surrounding the site had experienced significant change over the years and it had to be recognised that landscapes did change.  There had, for example been a change from stock farming to intensive arable farming.

·        There was substantial support for the proposal including support from the Parish Council.

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

·        The development was sustainable.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were also a number of letters in support.

·        There was no adverse effect on Sufton Court or the surrounding unregistered park and garden.

·        The development worked well within the landscape.

·        The design was good and had regard to the need for energy efficiency.

·        The development would be an improvement on the existing structures, or at least would have a minimal impact.

·        The dwelling was in open countryside with a high landscape value.  It was larger than the building it was to replace and the design was alien to the setting.  The scheme had little of benefit. It undermined the protection that should be afforded to such landscapes.

·        A smaller conversion scheme would be more appropriate.

·        The landscape was significant noting the link to Sir Edward Elgar.  However, it had been damaged over the years.

·        It was noted that officers had recommended refusal citing the detriment to the landscape that would be caused by a single dwelling.  It was requested that officers apply a consistent approach when preparing the report on the forthcoming application for the southern link road.

The Development Manager commented that permission for a house of standard design would have been refused.  Having regard to the consultation responses and the proposed design it was acknowledged that some might consider that the scheme did represent an enhancement.  English Heritage had no objection although concerns had been expressed by some other respondents.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He noted that the Committee had recently approved another single property at Cradley in the open countryside within an AONB given the quality of its design.  With the correct design the development proposed was sustainable.

RESOLVED:  That that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.