Apologies were received from Councillor Hardwick and Councillor Millmore.

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

Councillor Swinglehurst substituted for Councillor Millmore.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Agenda item 7: Application 191288 - Land at Oakland's Paddock, Langstone Lane, Llangarron

Councillor Polly Andrews declared an other declarable interest as the applicant’s agent’s parents lived near to her.

Councillor Swinglehurst declared an other declarable interest because she knew the applicants and the objectors.

(It was also noted that several Members knew the applicants agent for application 191288 as he had formerly worked for the Council as a planning officer.)

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Lead Development Manager highlighted the publication of a briefing note on phosphate levels in the River Lugg and the implications for planning applications.

Proposed erection of four dwellings and associated works.

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

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

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, Mr Lodge, of Llangarron Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr P Harries, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent, and Mrs F Farr, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There was a high level of objection from local people to the application.  However, a number of letters had also been received in support. The objectors, in the main lived closest to the site and would be most affected.

·        Letters in support of the proposal, principally felt that it was consistent with policy, and would breathe new life into the village.  The negative impact had been exaggerated.  The applicant had been willing to take on board comments and amend the plans.  The site was well located – close to the village amenities, well designed and would contribute positively to the village. 

·        However objectors considered the development would have a negative impact on the character of the settlement, be unacceptable in form, design, scale and location and have a negative impact on neighbouring properties. 

·        Trecilla Court (House) was understood to be being considered for listing by English Heritage and even without listing was due some regard as an undesignated heritage asset along with the cluster of curtilage buildings.  Any potential impact on the grade 1 listed church, St Deinsts and Little Trecilla also needed to be considered and whether or not that impact would be contrary to policy LD4 to protect, conserve and if possible enhance historic assets. 

·        Those nearest the site felt that the development would have an impact on their residential amenity – either though overlooking or disruption during the build phase.  The height of the plot in relation to those properties raised the concern that the ridge and eaves height, in context, would be overbearing.  The conservation officer had noted this point.

·        There was concern that the application would erode the pattern of dispersed sandstone settlement characteristic of Llangarron through infill and that the edge of the built environment was at Trecilla House and outbuildings.

·        Planning permissions had recently been granted for 4 houses in the immediate locality. There was concern that the proposal would make the road dangerous to use and that the cumulative impact on the local road network would be severe.   Lack of sufficient parking at the Church and Garron Centre worsened the problem along the narrow and twisting lane restricting visibility and making it difficult to pass. 

·        Drainage was a concern due to the steepness of the site and, although the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Erection of a single storey residential dwelling (c3) with garage, private driveway and creation of new access into the highway.   

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an additional provision relating to the access.

(Erection of a single storey residential dwelling (c3) with garage, private driveway and creation of new access into the highway.)

(Councillor Foxton joined the meeting part way through consideration of this item and accordingly was not eligible to vote upon it.  Councillor Fagan fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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, Mrs C Campbell of Garway Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr B McGinley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr S Collinson, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The absence of a five year housing land supply was creating pressure for development to take place.

·        A site for 8 dwellings was being developed to the north an east of the proposed site.  She considered that development to be out of character with the village setting.  .

·        The Parish Council had been active in securing rights to the common land at Garway.  There was a question over an easement that would be required to achieve an access to the proposed development.

·        She referenced sections of the National Design Guide 2019 produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.  This expanded on the provision in the national planning policy framework on the importance of high quality buildings and places and considered how well designed places could be achieved in practice and the identity and character of a place.

·        The proposal before the committee was out of character for the linear settlement of Garway to the detriment of the built environment.

·        There was a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless there were adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

·        Policy SS6 referred to conserving and enhancing those environmental assets that contributed towards the county’s distinctiveness.  This included the settlement pattern.

·        Paragraph 5.3.29 of the Core Strategy informing Policy SD1 referred to sustainable design and the protection of the built environment.

·        There were therefore policies that could be used to protect the built environment and communities in the face of the pressure for development.

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

·        The legal advisor to the committee confirmed that the question of whether an easement could be secured to access the proposed development was not a material consideration.

·        The proposal was for a backland development in a village that was predominantly linear in character.

·        The application was somewhat aspirational in seeking to be environmentally sustainable and could be more positive and definite in that regard.

·        Officers confirmed that the National Design Guide was a recent publication linked to references to design within the NPPF and was a material consideration.  it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

(Proposed development of 8 houses and garages.)

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings. 

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

(Proposed creation of 4 new dwellings.)

(Councillor Hunt was not present during consideration of part of this application and accordingly did not vote upon it.  Councillor Stone fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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, Mr E Molloy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He referenced the objections from 15 local residents and Brimfield and Little Hereford Group Parish Council.  He noted that although a representative of the Parish Council had been unable to attend the meeting the Parish Council had submitted additional representations in objection to the proposal as set out in the schedule of updates.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy BLH5 3a of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·        Neighbours would be adversely affected by the access, traffic, gradient and light pollution.

·        Suitable surface water run-off procedures had not been proposed.

·        The need to use cess pits would lead to increased traffic movements to empty them, to the detriment of neighbours.

·        The C1053, the access road, was narrow and had been a safety concern to residents for some time.  There was no footpath and it was well used by pedestrians. The road was also used by cyclists, riders along with the neighbouring footpaths.  The parish council had requested warning signs.

·        The proposal would increase the tanker journeys to empty the cess pits – some 190 trips per annum to the detriment of the environment and road safety.

·        The report proposed that control would need to be imposed through a section 106 agreement to ensure that the cesspools were emptied at a suitable disposal site. It was questioned how effective this would be and concern expressed about the risk to public health and the environment.

·        He questioned whether the amount of surface water run-off was being underestimated, mindful of climate change.  There had been instances of flooding.

·        The report noted that the applicant must establish the adjacent landowner as they were the riparian of the watercourse and ensure that permission was obtained for disposal of water into this watercourse. It was questioned how this would be actioned.

·        The proportionate housing growth target for the area had been achieved.

·        He welcomed the proposal that 2 of the 4 proposed dwellings would be bungalows.  The proposal did also comply with policy BLH5 of the NDP accepting that it was adjacent to the settlement.

·        The economic and social benefits from the development would be modest. There was a successful pub but the church and village hall could only be reached by car or bicycle down the busy A456.  It was too dangerous by foot.  There were therefore very few local facilities.  That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Change of use of existing annex into holiday let accommodation.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an amended condition as reflected in the schedule of updates.

(Change of use of existing annex into holiday let accommodation.)

The Senior 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.

The local ward member, Councillor Harvey had been unable to attend the meeting and had submitted a statement.  The Planning lawyer read this to the meeting.

This made the following principal points:

·        The site is in an exceptional position with far reaching views.  It is wholly within the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which demands high standards for care and development within and approaching the designated area.

·        Ochre Lane  is a footpath not a lane.   Residents on the ‘Lane’ share financial responsibility for its upkeep and the ‘Lane’ itself runs along the ridgeline of the valley.

·        Over the last 30 years there a significant amount of development has been allowed along the ‘Lane’, some of which breached the ridgeline.  This development has had a cumulative effect on the amenity of the ‘Lane’ and, most recently, has had a significant detrimental impact on the condition and nature of the ‘footpath’ designated a public right of way.

·        The ‘Annex’ consists of farmyard outbuildings.   The plot – had been a working sawmill.

·        The parish council and neighbours sharing responsibility for the ‘Lane’ had raised objections to this application.  Their grounds were set out in the officer report. In particular, the parish council maintained that the application was in opposition to policy WH 12.1 of the adopted NDP – which is concerned with noise nuisance. The parish council also noted that the site falls outside the agreed settlement boundary for the village.

·        Neighbours object to the way in which previous development on the ‘Lane’ has been undertaken in what they consider to be an inconsiderate manner. They fear that yet further development will perpetuate the inconvenience and disruption to which they have already been subjected for some considerable time.

·        Concerns had been expressed by neighbours about increased maintenance costs of the land and how these would be shared between residents.  However, the report noted that this was not a planning matter.  The application did not increase the footprint of the existing building – it simply requested permission for change of use.

·        There was some economic benefit from the creation of visitor accommodation within the AONB.

·        The property was within easy walking and cycling distance of Ledbury and is close to a bus route and bus stop.

·        As reflected in the schedule of updates, the application was not for holiday lodges but for holiday let.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application it was suggested that the proposed use was more satisfactory than other potential uses.

There was discussion of whether condition 12 could be amended to restrict letting to April to October.  The consensus was that this would be too restrictive.

Councillor James proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Date of next site inspection – 12 November 2019

Date of next meeting – 13 November 2019

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.