Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, KS Guthrie, EL Holton, EJ Swinglehurst and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor MT McEvilly substituted for Councillor EJ Swinglehurst and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

Agenda item 9:  163324 – Land to the West of A40 Weston Under Penyard

Councillor H Bramer declared a non-pecuniary interest because some years ago in a personal capacity he had commissioned work from the applicants.

Agenda item 10: 173082 – Land at Parkgate, Ivington

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

(Councillor J Hardwick in the chair)

Hybrid planning application proposed for the development of employment uses including b1, b2 and b8, including full details of the access, internal road infrastructure and circulation routes, and landscaping within a landscape buffer zone providing surface water attenuation and planting.

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

(Hybrid planning application proposed for the development of employment uses including b1, b2 and b8, including full details of the access, internal road infrastructure and circulation routes, and landscaping within a landscape buffer zone providing surface water attenuation and planting.)

(Councillor Cutter fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the Planning Code, Councillor DG Harlow – Cabinet Member (economy and communications) spoke on the application.  He commented on the importance of the project to the Herefordshire economy and encouraged the Committee to support it, expressing the view that the scheme was well designed, flexible to the needs of a range of occupiers and provided mitigation to address any impacts associated with the scheme.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He endorsed the comments of the cabinet member on the economic value of the project.

·        He expressed sympathy towards the tenants who were vacating smallholdings currently on the site and expressed the hope that the council would provide such assistance to them as it could.

·        Issues relating to highways and transportation had been satisfactorily addressed as set out in the report to the Committee.

·        His principal concern was to ensure that the housing estate neighbouring the site was well screened from the development, with a buffer zone in place before development commenced.

·        It would be important that sub-contractors provided infrastructure of the appropriate quality to support the development.

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

·        It would be important to ensure that the landscaping was good.

·        It was to be hoped that drainage costs could be contained.

·        It was important to ensure the provision of walking and cycling routes.

·        The economic benefits of the scheme should be welcomed.

·        The geographical location was suited to the development.

·        One of the positive aspects of the development was the prospect that people living on the neighbouring residential development would secure employment on the economic development site, so minimising travel and reducing congestion.  A concern was expressed that if the phasing of the two developments was not managed this aim would not be achieved.

·        Clarification was sought on the buffer zone between the employment uses and the neighbouring residential areas and whether it would be preferable to provide more trees around the perimeter of the development.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the delivery of the site was in accordance with the Core Strategy policies to provide housing and employment. It was to be hoped that provision made in the capital programme would enable the economic development site to be delivered in a similar timespan to the neighbouring housing development.  With reference to concerns expressed by Weston under Penyard Parish Council he observed that significant funding had been provided for highway works as part of the planning permissions granted for housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

(Retrospective) construction of wall approx 2' 9" x 15' in local stone located adjacent to stable block in paddock.  Sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously.

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

((Retrospective) construction of wall approx 2' 9" x 15' in local stone located adjacent to stable block in paddock.  Sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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 added that the Land Drainage Officer had advised that construction of the wall did not require land drainage consent because the watercourse had been successfully diverted. The culvert that created the diversion had been installed by a former landowner before the wall was built. Since then, improvements had been made by their riparian landowner to ensure that the diversion would work. This included an overflow from the pond.  The land drainage officer therefore had no objection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Ms P Fender, a local resident neighbouring the application site, spoke in objection to the scheme.

The local ward member was the applicant and the Councillor appointed to fulfil the role of local ward member on her behalf did not wish to speak on the application.

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

·        Assurance was sought that the construction of the wall had not increased the risk of flooding on the neighbouring property.  The SPO reiterated the advice of the land drainage officer that there was no issue arising from the construction and no objection to it.

·        The committee update made reference to a further letter of objection that stated amongst other things:  “In her Planning Application the Applicant states:  "this is a reinstatement -- sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously -- reinstatement of wall that formed part of the curtilage at listing."  It was asked who had seen these historical documents, noting that they had not been provided to the objector. 

·        The SPO commented that the council did not hold the documents.  The Lead Development Manager added that the council held maps but these did not identify whether a line on a plan was a wall or a fence, for example.  An aerial photograph, undated, had been supplied by the neighbour.  This did show a wall in the area where the development had now taken place.  Another wall constructed by the applicant fronting onto the lane constituted permitted development.  He outlined the watercourse on a slide and how it flowed into a pond and thence into a discharge pipe.

·        Members reviewed the aerial photograph that had been included in the slides accompanying the officer presentation.

·        It was noted that the neighbour maintained that there had been an adverse impact on the amenity of her property from flooding as a consequence of the development.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the reason the application was retrospective was that in constructing the two walls a question had arisen as to whether both were permitted development.  On inspecting the site he had concluded that one wall was permitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

Reserved matters application (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline approval 150888 - for the erection of 35 dwellings.

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

(Reserved matters application (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline approval 150888 - for the erection of 35 dwellings.)  

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs L Dunn of Weston Under Penyard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Moore, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer was invited to speak on the application.  He indicated that he would comment following the debate.

The principal issue the Committee discussed was the proposal to reduce the number of affordable homes the scheme would deliver from 12to 7 on the grounds that the approved outline scheme was unviable.  It was noted that this was contrary to the wish of the Parish Council and that there was an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It was suggested that it also raised a question as to whether the affordable housing targets in the Core Strategy were realistic and achievable or needed to be revisited.  The housing officer had commented at paragraph 4.6 of the report that priority should be given to the delivery of affordable dwellings rather than the payment of a commuted sum.

A concern was expressed about the layout noting the Transportation Manager’s comments that there could be some difficulties with the proposed parking arrangements.

In response to questions officers made the following points:

·        If a commuted sum were to be accepted, although this was not what the Parish Council wanted, this would be available for allocation within the housing market area; it was unlikely that this would be spent in Weston Under Penyard.  The revised scheme did still provide affordable housing for the parish.

·        The District Valuer did take account of the purchase price developers paid for land and assess whether that price was reasonable.  The price had to be realistic and reflect current land values.  There were instances in which the District Valuer had rejected submissions by developers.  The District Valuer also took into account the level of return on investment that a developer would make.  Officers did consider the District Valuer’s assumptions and challenge them when this was considered appropriate.  At an appeal Planning Inspectors would give weight to the views of the District Valuer.

·        It was confirmed that the provision of affordable housing formed part of the S106 agreement and it was appropriate for the Committee to consider whether this could be varied as part of the reserved matters application.

·        Weight had been given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It was simply the case that regard also had to be had to other material considerations.  It was to be noted that policy H3 of the Weston Under Penyard NDP did state proposals for development should meet local housing needs:  “and should provide a tenure mix of 40% of Affordable Homes unless viability considerations can be shown to necessitate an alternative percentage of provision.” This took account of paragraph 173 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Proposed erection of an agricultural workers' dwelling (part retrospective).

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

(Proposed erection of an agricultural workers' dwelling (part retrospective).

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application, which had been withdrawn from the agenda at the previous meeting, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He added with reference to paragraph 5.1 of the report that it had been confirmed that Leominster Town Council had had no objection to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pendleton of Leominster Town Council spoke in support of the application.  Mr J Hanson, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The Council had by its actions demonstrated the importance of adhering to planning policies.  The matter had been ongoing for some time and had been stressful for the applicant.  It was not a situation anyone would willingly choose to be in.

·        Sustainability underpinned the Core Strategy.  Parkgate consisted of 3 cottages.  It was not in open countryside it was in farmland.  The cottages had been constructed to provide accommodation for farm workers.  Two other small houses were immediately close by.

·        The location was sustainable.  The Council had placed tenants in the nearby houses for many years.  A regular bus service to Leominster ran past the house.

·        Only one dwelling currently had an agricultural tie.  Approving the application for a further tied dwelling would contribute to the economic viability of the farm. 

·        The house had been constructed on the footprint of the former dwelling and to the same height.  The frontage was the same and stones and tiles of the former building had been reused, providing an attractive result, matching the cottage next door.

·        Leominster Neighbourhood Development Plan, approved since the appeal, could be afforded moderate weight.  Policy LANP 5 permitted new housing development in the open countryside where it replaced an existing dwelling on the same site and was of a similar size and scale to the dwelling to be replaced.

·        The applicants had fostered many children and contributed to the community.

·        Having restored two cottages it was perhaps unsurprising that the applicant had not realised that the dwelling the subject of the application needed to be treated differently. Ideally advice would have been sought. However, they had not been well served by advice they had received from the council.

·        Neighbours supported the application which restored what had been a dangerous structure to an attractive affordable house, enhancing its setting, located between two other homes.

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

·        A retrospective application was regrettable, but it was a confused situation involving several misunderstandings and did not appear to be an opportunistic application.  The applicants had had mixed advice some of which was a matter of dispute.

·        The proposal was sustainable development.

·        A building had previously been on the site.

·        The application had the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Proposed extension and enlargement of existing sun room.

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

(Councillor Norman had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Greenow fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Soilleux, of Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Davies, a local resident and neighbour, spoke in objection. 

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

He commented that the proposal, which would increase the size of the dwelling by some 60% was contrary to policy BL2 of the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It would have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of several properties.  

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the parish council’s objection was noted and concern was expressed about the scale of the development and its effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

A view was also expressed that there were other properties in the development that were closer to one another than neighbouring properties would be to the extended dwelling. This made it difficult to refuse the application.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that there were no policies limiting the percentage by which a dwelling could be extended.  Officers considered the design was acceptable and compatible with other properties in the area and to be in accordance with policy. Other properties nearby were closer to one another than neighbouring properties would be to the extended dwelling and weight would be given to that point by an inspector in the event of an appeal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that the development would be detrimental.  The rear of the extended property would be close to the neighbouring property as opposed to being close to the side of the property as in the case of the distances between other properties in the area to which reference had been made.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Edwards seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy SD1 of the Core Strategy and policy BL2 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan by reason of design and relationship with adjoining dwellings.  The motion was carried with 5 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to policy SD1 of the Core Strategy and policy BL2 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to detail these reasons.

Date of next site inspection – 13 March 2018

Date of next meeting – 14 March 2018