Apologies were received from Councillors RC Hunt, Brig P Jones CBE and RI Matthews.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson, JA Hyde and DC Taylor attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors RC Hunt, Brig P Jones CBE and RI Matthews.

No declarations of interest were made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2011, and the corrected minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2011.

The Democratic Services Officer advised the Committee that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2011 had been resubmitted for approval as the resolution for application DCNW2008/1289/F had previously been omitted.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings held on 14 September 2011 and 12 October 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised Members that the Overview and Scrutiny ‘Task and Finish Group’ who had been tasked with looking at the Council’s planning functions had sent out a questionnaire to all members. On behalf of Councillor PJ Watts, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, he asked members to complete the questionnaire and return it at their earliest convenience.

Councillor PJ Edwards requested further details in respect of the costs awarded to the applicant for the appeal at Greytree Lodge, Ross-on-Wye. The Head of Neighbourhood Development advised that the costs had not yet been finalised but that he would communicate with Councillor Edwards directly once the figure was known. [Note: Added at the meeting of Planning Committee on 23 November 2011]

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 (Retail) store, car parking, landscaping and associated works.

The application was withdrawn by the applicant.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Erection of sixteen dwellings, construction of vehicular access and associated works.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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. The Principal Planning Officer also verbally reported the receipt of a further four letters of objection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Hepworth, representing some of the residents of Hawthorn Rise, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PD Price, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site inspection was welcomed and gave the committee the opportunity to see at first hand the issues that concerned the local residents.

·         There was no objection to housing on the site as it was within the settlement boundary and designated for housing in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

·         The residents of Hawthorn Rise had suffered through an excessive build time with the development still not being completed.

·         The proposed access was not acceptable. The initial plans for Hawthorn Rise did not show a gap between numbers 12 and 13 where the new access was now being proposed. The current construction access situated to the north west of the site was deemed more suitable.

·         There were also concerns in respect of drainage. The ditch being proposed for drainage, which was located at the south east of the site, was higher than the centre of the site. If permission was granted there would have to be a clear drainage condition.

·         A condition to address the concerns regarding overhead electricity cables was also proposed.

·         Concerns were also expressed regarding the allocation of affordable homes on the site. It was suggested that the affordable homes be integrated into the site and not situated together in one row. It was noted that this could be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

Members opened the debate by thanking the officers for a thorough and detailed site inspection.

The committee expressed concerns in respect of the proposed access. It was felt that the residents of Hawthorn Rise had bought their homes in good faith after viewing site plans which did not indicate an access between numbers 12 and 13. The Committee were of the opinion that the applicant should investigate other options in respect of the access, particular reference was made to the current construction access to the north west of the site.

Members did discuss the possibility of deferring the determination of the application to give the applicant the opportunity to reconsider the access.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised members that the concerns regarding the access could not be suitably addressed through a deferral as the applicant would have to submit a new application if the access was to be revised as had been suggested. He also stated that the proposed access was 4.5 metres wide and complied with highway standards.

Members also discussed their concerns in respect of the overhead cables, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Change of use of redundant rural building to one dwelling.

Approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Wilson, representing Bartestree with Lugwardine Parish Council, and Mr Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The site map contained within the agenda was unacceptable and did not show the site in relation to the neighbouring area.
• Recently had a discussion with the Chairman of the Parish Council’s Planning Committee who made a strong case for supporting the application.
• The policy referred to in the case officer’s reason for refusal could also be used to support the application.
• The site was in a sustainable location and was just outside of the settlement boundary.
• There was no other use for the building and it could easily fall into a state of disrepair.

Members noted that the Parish Council was in support of the application and voiced concerns that the building could end up derelict if the application was not approved. The planning history of the site was also noted, the Committee were satisfied that there had been an attempt to use the building for business use but that this had proved unsuccessful.

In respect of the site, the Committee felt that it was sustainable and would be suitable for a small 2 bedroom dwelling. They were however of the opinion that the footprint of the existing building should not be extended. There was a discussion as to how this could be achieved with one of the Members recommending that the permitted development rights be removed to ensure that any extensions to the building would be subject to planning consent.

The Locum Lawyer advised that the removal of permitted development rights would normally be through the use of an article four direction. However he was of the opinion that a condition could be added to the resolution to address the concerns of the committee.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that it was not unusual to remove permitted development rights for applications but the use of a condition was an acceptable course of action for the committee to take.      

In response to a number of points raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there had been no details of ‘local use’ contained in the applicant’s submission. She also advised that the site had been market tested but noted that it was not unusual for buildings to struggle to sell in the current financial climate this however did not discount other uses such as a holiday let, which would be deemed more acceptable. It was also noted that the previous uses of the building, for retail and a coffee shop, were not during the applicant’s ownership. Finally she added that if the site was granted planning permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Date of next site inspection -  22 November 2011

Date of next meeting -            23 November 2011