To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Elizabeth Foxton, Peter Hamblin, Dan Powell and Stef Simmons.

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

Councillor David Hitchiner acted as a substitute for Councillor Foxton

Councillor Justine Peberdy acted as a substitute for Councillor Simmons

Councillor Kevin Tillett acted as a substitute for Councillor Dan Powell

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 17 January 2024.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024 be approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairman explained that application 233225, 182 Ledbury Road, Hereford, HR1 1RH, had been withdrawn for consideration at the current meeting and would return to a later committee date.

Proposed erection of a dwelling of outstanding design and accompanying works, including a new access, extensive landscaping, biodiversity improvements, and drainage arrangements.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager North Team provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda, as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Stock, spoke on behalf of Colwall Parish Council, Mr Barnes spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local residents and Mr Yardley, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. A number of local objections had been raised to the proposal locally. The proposed development was located in a national landscape and was not sympathetic to the Malvern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). It was not considered that the application met the conditions of paragraph 84 (e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There was an oversupply of 4 bedroom houses in the locality and the development site was not in an isolated position but was on the edge of the settlement. If the committee approved the application it would set a precedent and place a pressure on the committee to approve all similar applications.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee.

There was support for the officer recommendation among some members of the committee.

There were objections to the development among other members of the committee who considered that:

-        The proposal did not meet the standard of exceptional quality or innovative design, contrary to Core Strategy Policy RA3 (6) and in accordance with paragraph 139 of the NPPF;

-        The location of the application site was in a rural area and due to the size and scale of the development did not meet a local housing need contrary to paragraph 82 of the NPPF; and

-        The scale and design of the building was not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area contrary to paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF and did not further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the Malvern Hills AONB, contrary to section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. The impact of the development on the landscape was unacceptable. The design, size and setting of the building was not sympathetic to the AONB.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Dave Davies seconded the approval of the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation. The motion was put to the vote and was lost by a simple majority.

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded the refusal of the application for those reasons in objection as set out above. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED: That planning permission is refused due to:

-        The proposal does not meet the standard of exceptional quality or innovative design, contrary to Core Strategy Policy RA3 (6) and in accordance with paragraph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Demolition of existing hotel and associated structures and erection of Class E foodstore with associated access, parking, servicing, drainage and landscaping.

Application approved, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Kevin Tillett left the committee to act as the local ward member for the following application.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a presentation of the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda, as provided in the update sheet and appended to the minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking a statement was read on behalf of Mr Machin, in objection to the application and Mr Waldren, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution the adjoining local ward member spoke on the application. He explained that he was speaking on behalf of the three local members whose electoral divisions were materially impacted by the proposal. The proposed demolition of the three counties hotel constituted the loss of a community asset. There was a limited number of hotels locally and the existing hotel on the site was a useful facility for: visitors to the south side of the Wye; a venue for celebrations and conferences; and a public bar for the local community. There was concern that the proposal would adversely impact upon retail and footfall in the city centre which had been suggested by a report from JW Planning in assessment of the application. The design of the building was not felt to be sympathetic to the predominant red brick developments locally. There was concern regarding drainage on the site; until January 2024 the drainage officer had objected to the application. The drainage conditions required additional plans to be submitted therefore the committee did not have all necessary information in this area to come to a decision. There was also a concern that shopping trolleys from the supermarket would be disposed in local waterways and cause blockages and flooding. There was an error in the ecologist’s report concerning the identification of gulls in the local area and it was queried whether the rest of the report could be treated as credible. The critical issue concerning the site was traffic and highways problems; this was the overwhelming area of objection to the application. The highways assessments in the report were not plausible given the local knowledge of queuing traffic and congestion on the Belmont Road. The local highways did not have sufficient capacity for the development and there were safety concerns regarding the proposed right hand turn to exit the store.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee.

There were objections to the development among some members of the committee who considered that:

-       The proposal would cause unacceptable impacts on highway movements, and the right hand turn exit from the site would pose highway safety concerns contrary to core strategy policies SS4 and MT1;

-       The design and scale of the building was out of keeping with the local area and the impact on the local area was unacceptable, contrary to core strategy polices SS6 and LD1; and

-       The proposal would undermine retail and footfall in the town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Proposed replacement of existing rear conservatory and terrace with a larger single storey extension and terrace.

Application approved, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution a statement from the local ward member was read to the meeting. It was confirmed that the application was policy compliant and the committee was asked to support the ongoing improvements to the Pilgrim Hotel.

The committee debated the application. There was support for the officer recommendation.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: 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:

INFORMATIVES: