To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Polly Andrews, Councillor Jacqul Carwardine,  Councillor John Stone and Councillor Charlie Taylor.

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

Councillor Louis Stark acted as substitute for Councillor Polly Andrews

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 3 June 2026.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2026 be approved.

Outline planning application for a sustainable urban extension comprising: up-to 250 dwellings; open space, allotments and landscaping; school expansion land; areas of children's play; sustainable urban drainage infrastructure; internal roads; and associated infrastructure. Detailed approval is sought for principal means of access and layout with all other matters reserved.

Application refused in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Page spoke on behalf of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. She addressed the committee on behalf of residents and Bromyard Town Council, stating that many were deeply disappointed that the development proposal had reached this stage, as it had been viewed as a significant opportunity to support investment, employment, increased footfall and wider economic regeneration in the market town. It was acknowledged that the planning authority had made repeated efforts to engage with the current developer but had been met with a lack of communication, causing frustration given the time and effort invested in the scheme.

Residents were encouraged by reports of potential interest from other developers and therefore supported the Town Council’s request for a deferral rather than a final determination of the application. It was emphasised that the key concern was preserving the opportunity for future investment and regeneration through a committed developer willing to engage with both the planning authority and the local community.

The committee debated the application, and the following principal points were raised:

1.     The potential loss of an important development opportunity for the town.

2.     Concern and disappointment at the lack of engagement from the applicant with the authority was noted and that the authority had reached the point where the application needed to be determined.

3.     The development was only considered acceptable due to the mitigation measures and obligations secured through the Section 106 agreement, including affordable housing, transport improvements, pedestrian connections, education and sports provision, and nutrient neutrality requirements and that the development could not proceed without the necessary agreement being secured.

4.     It was queried why the applicant had not withdrawn the application and clarification sought on whether continuing to leave the application undetermined would affect the availability of phosphate mitigation credits.

The development manager provided the following clarification:

      I.         Whilst it was encouraging that there may be interest from other parties in developing the site, the application could not be transferred to another applicant or agent and must be determined on its own merits. Any future involvement by alternative developers would need to occur through a separate process, including the submission of a new planning application.

     II.         Extensive efforts had been made to engage with the applicant and their appointed planning agent, including requests for the application to be withdrawn, but no confirmation or meaningful response had been received.

   III.         The application had been allocated a significant number of phosphate mitigation credits from the Tarrington Wetland scheme, but no mitigation had been secured through a completed agreement. Should the application be refused, the allocated credits would be released and returned to the council’s allocation pool for use by other eligible developments in accordance with the council’s allocation policy. It was emphasised that the future use of those credits was not a material planning consideration.

The local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.