Apologies were received from Councillors Graham Andrews, Polly Andrews and Watson.

Councillor Bolderson sent apologies as ward member for one application.  Councillor Howells also sent his apologies as an adjoining ward member for an application.

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

Councillor Shaw substituted for Councillor Johnson, Councillor Tillett for Councillor Polly Andrews and Councillor Wilding for Councillor Watson.

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.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson thanked members who had attended the site visits which had proved informative.

Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.

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

(Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred by the Committee on 19 June 2019. 

Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.  The PPO noted that condition 22 of the outline planning permission in respect of sustainable drainage had not yet been discharged but was considered to address a concern raised by a representation in the update about drainage and ecological implications.  These matters were addressed within the report.

The Government had published a revision of the Planning Practice Guidance on noise just before midnight on 22 July.  The application had been reviewed in the light of this updated guidance and officers had concluded the noise assessment provided by the applicant remained valid.  The Ornua cheese factory was not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the proposed dwellings. The proposal was considered to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

A late representation had been received from Ornua Ingredients UK Ltd containing a further assessment of tonal noise. 

The applicant’s noise consultants had responded.  The PPO read this response in full to the meeting along with the Environmental Health Officer’s response to the representation.  This information has been included with the updates appended to these minutes.  The consultants maintained their position, that sound from the Ornua factory was not tonal, therefore no noise penalty should be applied.  The EHO did not recommend a noise penalty.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr P Kinnaird, a local resident, spoke in objection. Mr S Stanion spoke on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson homes in support of the application together with Stella Yates of West Mercia Housing Ltd.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor I’Anson, spoke on the application.  She made the following principal points:

·        Residents wanted the site issues to be resolved and the development to proceed.  She noted that St Michael’s church had formed a group to welcome new residents and the Church was seeking to purchase land for a new school. 

·        The development was not perfect.  She highlighted key changes to the application since the last Planning and Regulatory Committee as set out in the committee update:  amendments to the affordable housing layout; enhanced landscaping plans, including increased tree planting along the southern boundary; introduction of communal vegetable planters and provision of additional orchard walks; enhanced connectivity plans for pedestrian, cycle and potential bus routes; preparation and submission of CGI views along northern, southern and western boundaries; updated waste management plan; updated energy statement supporting fabric first approach; and improved play areas for children of all ages including an informal kickabout area.

·        The PPO had commented on the latest noise assessments in his presentation.

·        She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Site for a proposed development for the erection of 10 dwellings.

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

(Site for a proposed development for the erection of 10 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking a statement was read out on behalf of Mr M Hodgson, a local resident, in objection to the application.  Mr J Hicks, of Owen Hicks Architects, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The report referred to eleven objections having been received from local residents, but this represented 15 individuals.

·        A neighbourhood development plan (NDP) had been made and weight should be given to it.  The proposal appeared to be contrary to the NDP.  The proposal for 10 dwellings was not modest, sustainable or of an appropriate scale. The nearest shop was 3 miles away, as was the nearest post office and school.  There were 2 buses a week. The development would mean additional journeys by car.  Three houses were being constructed in the village centre, with permission for another development of five dwellings.  The minimum target for Preston on Wye in the Core Strategy was 10 dwellings.  If the application were approved this would mean the provision of 18 dwellings, representing 20% growth of Preston on Wye. The development was not dictated by local need.  In the area of the Wyeside Group of parishes 31 further houses were required to be delivered by 2031.  This was ample time for organic community led infill growth.

·        The NDP indicated that the maximum size for a single development considered acceptable for Preston on Wye was 5 dwellings.  A development of 10 or more was considered unlikely due to historical low levels of supply and demand, which was not expected to change significantly.  Eleven or more houses on one site would be the exception, and should not be treated as a priority at the expense of smaller developments which can more easily fulfil the housing target.

·        Preston-on-Wye had a village centre and was not a linear development along the roadside like many Herefordshire villages.  There was the opportunity to deliver housing plots in the future.

·        She was concerned about the access to the development \noting the narrow single track roads leading to the village, with limited passing places.  The traffic levels had not been assessed at the peak summer period when a local camp site was in full use.  The cumulative effect on the road network would be severe.

·        The access road often flooded.

·        The Core Strategy said development should be focused on the most sustainable locations, reduced the need to travel by car and encouraged sustainable travel options.

·        The development would mean the loss of agricultural land.  The security of the Country’s food production needed to be considered.  In addition, developments on such land affected the special characteristics of villages in the area. Wyeside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Development of 2 dwellings with garages.

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

(Development of 2 dwellings with garages.)

(Councillor Wilding had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

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.  She added that Natural England had confirmed that they had no objection to the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment undertaken by the Council.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr T Cramp, of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr D Alakija spoke on behalf of a local resident in objection.  Mr R Pryce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Swinglehurst read out a statement on the application on behalf of Councillor Bolderson, the local ward member.  This is included within the update.

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

·        There had been a suggestion that the new access road may also provide access to the scrapyard to the south east of the site.  The SPO clarified that the access lane would only provide access to the two proposed dwellings and a paddock within the applicant’s ownership.  Access to the scrapyard was off a separate road.  Any new access would require planning permission.

·        Concern was expressed about poor drainage and the risk of flooding as highlighted in the Parish Council’s representations.  The site was in flood zone one.  There was historic evidence of flooding.  It was questioned whether this represented grounds for refusing the application.  The Lead Development Manager (LDM) commented that, as set out in the report, the Drainage Engineer was content with the proposed scheme.  Condition 13 required a full drainage strategy to be agreed prior to any development.  He cautioned against seeking to refuse the application on grounds of poor drainage. 

·        It was observed that there were concerns within communities about the robustness of the percolation tests carried out during the hot and dry summer of 2018.  The LDM commented that several tests had been carried out on the site in accordance with the required national standards.

·        The LDM acknowledged concerns about flooding in the area but reiterated that the technical consultees considered the drainage proposals to be acceptable.  He suggested an additional condition that one of the dwellings should be a bungalow to be in keeping with existing development.  This was accepted.  The access was considered acceptable.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan had limited weight at this stage.  Whilst the area had reached its minimum housing target a small number of additional properties was not significant enough to provide grounds for refusing the application.

Councillor Swinglehurst was given the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the local ward member. She commented that the application highlighted tensions between local knowledge and expert opinion, and local wishes and national policies. The site was in flood zone 1. It was essential that any drainage scheme was detailed and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Proposed extension to an existing gypsy/travellers site comprising 5no. Residential pitches, 1 no. Extended dayroom, 2 no. Utility blocks, 1 no. Access, hardstanding and associated works.

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

(Proposed extension to an existing gypsy/travellers site comprising 5no. Residential pitches, 1 no. Extended dayroom, 2 no. Utility blocks, 1 no. Access, hardstanding and associated works.)

(Councillors Paul Andrews, Hardwick, James and Wilding had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Whitehead, of Bosbury and Coddington Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Ruth Munns, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Johnson, spoke on the application. He expressed the view that whilst on the site visit the site had appeared tidy and potentially suitable it was not necessarily the right place for such a development.  He intended to comment in more detail at the end of the debate.

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

·        A Councillor highlighted paragraph 6.50 of the report.

·        Clarification was sought on the proposed new western site access which had already been constructed but in part appeared to be outside the red line delineating the application.  The Lead Development Manager commented that the application did not take account of the need to include highway land.  A consent from the highway authority would need to be sought and granted.  The application was valid as it stood.

·        It was asked whether the impact on seven mature oaks bordering the site had been assessed.  It was suggested that the proposed area of hard standing did not respect the root protection zone.  The new access road also appeared very close to one of the oak trees.  The Lead Development Manager suggested that a suitable condition could be added to protect the trees, subject to the advice of the tree officer.

·        The SPO confirmed that the Drainage Engineer had no objection to the drainage proposals.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He made the following principal points:

·        The local community was opposed to the application.  Bosbury had 4 travellers sites with 14 pitches representing 12% of the total pitches provided within the county.  The additional 5 pitches proposed within the application together with another development being proposed nearby would bring the proportion of pitches up to 16% accommodating some 40-60 travellers.

·        The Parish Council had supported the application for 2 pitches on the site in 2012 on the basis that there would be no additional development.  The report stated at paragraph 5.3 that “there must be consideration as whether the reasons for imposing these conditions are still applicable or whether different conditions could be imposed to mitigate any potential impacts.”  He questioned the disregarding of the agreed conditions.

·        He questioned whether the policy complied with Core Strategy policies H4 and RA3.  He also questioned whether there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Date of next site inspection – 13 August 2019

Date of next meeting – 14 August 2019

Noted.