Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, DW Greenow and RC Hunt.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor P Rone attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RC Hunt.

Agenda item 7: 131391/F and 131390/O The Oval, Hereford

Councillor AN Bridges, non-pecuniary, member of The Oval Steering Group

Councillor PJ Edwards, non-pecuniary, Chairman of The Oval Steering Group

Councillor P Rone, non-disclosable pecuniary, Herefordshire Council representative on the Board of Herefordshire Housing Ltd.

Councillor GA Vaughn-Powell, non pecuniary, member of The Oval Steering Group Sub-Groups.

Agenda item 9: 131631/F Land at Thorny Orchard, Coughton, Ross-on-Wye

Councillor PGH Cutter, non-pecuniary, Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor BA Durkin, non-pecuniary, Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor J Hardwick, non-pecuniary, Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 August 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed demolition and regeneration to include 259 new build flats/houses, external refurbishment works to the existing flats above the Oval Shops, landscaping and associated works.

Construction of new Community Hub.

The two applications were approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation with the addition of a condition extending delegated powers for phasing and technical highway and cycleway details in consultation with ward members.

(Councillor P Rone declared a non-disclosable pecuniary interest and withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the two applications.  She referred to an additional representation and a proposed amendment to the printed recommendation set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Crowe, a resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Dawn Killeen, of The Oval Support Group, then spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution the three local ward members spoke on the application.

Councillor GA Vaughan-Powell supported application 131391/F and commented on a number of issues, including:

·         She highlighted the Transport Manager’s general highways comments set out at paragraph 4.2 of the report and commented that she had requested traffic calming measures.

·         The proposed relocation of the bus stop near The Oval required consideration.  It was important any replacement was equally accessible.

·         Better parking options would be favoured.

·         She regretted the loss of public open space.

·         She also regretted that reference to some letters of representation and a petition submitted to Property Services had not been included in the report.

·         She declined to make specific comment on the community hub.

Councillor AN Bridges supported the applications and commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There was an urgent need to regenerate the area and replace outdated property that was difficult to maintain with new energy efficient homes. The development would benefit the area and provide economic development opportunities offering jobs.

·         A lot of work had been undertaken with the developer and Herefordshire Housing to try to ensure the scheme was right. The developer and Herefordshire Housing had communicated well with the community about the scheme and had agreed to work with the local community to reduce the impact of the works.

·         There was a loss of public open space but the scheme provided secure private gardens.

·         He welcomed the proposal to involve ward members in determining aspects of the detail of the final scheme.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the applications and commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The scheme had been under consideration for a long time and there had been wide consultation.  The scheme had the community’s support.  The officer’s report included only one letter of representation in objection to the scheme.

·         The proposed development of houses with gardens was welcomed.

·         He would like to see a one-way traffic system to benefit cyclists and pedestrians. 

·         He hoped consideration could be given to setting aside some further public open space at Argyle Rise.

·         He welcomed a number of the specific conditions set out in the recommendations.

·         The scheme as a whole would provide a welcoming approach to the City and be to the satisfaction of residents. It would also help with current housing problems in the area.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The involvement of local ward members in finalising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Class A1 Food store, petrol filling station and associated parking and servicing facilities, resizing and refurbishment of two class B units and associated highway works.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.   He referred to additional representations and a proposed amendment to the printed recommendation set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Verity, representing Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection to the application.  Mrs Thomas, of Thomas Panels,   then spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor PJ McCaull, one of the local ward members, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He expressed concern in relation to the time taken to bring the application forward and its relative association with the application by Dales.

·         He understood that the applicants had only been informed of the reasons for recommending refusal one week ago and considered this had not given them any opportunity to seek to address the matters identified. 

·         He argued that the distance from the site to the town centre should be measured to Corn Square.  The site was closer to the town centre that the measurement given in the report and was easily accessible by foot.  If the distance from the Dales site to Corn Square were measured that site would be further away.

·         The report was mistaken in focusing on cycle and pedestrian access to the site ignoring the reality that people shopping at supermarkets generally travelled by car.

·         The proposed development would support a large number of residential areas within the City.

·         He made a number of observations about the effect of the introduction of car parking charges in Leominster, the prospect that existing supermarkets would begin to charge for use of their car parks and the implications of that for the town centre.  The proposed development offered an opportunity for park and ride to the town centre.

·         It was unsurprising that competitors were objecting to the proposal.

·         He considered that the application should be deferred to allow the applicant time to respond to the grounds for refusal set out in the report.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concerns about the proposed development had been known for some time.

·         The viability of the town centre was a particular concern.  The report by Deloittes considered the town centre was vulnerable.

·         The proposal involved the loss of employment and industrial land.  Additional housing was planned for Leominster and employment opportunities needed to be available.  There were clear grounds for refusing such a retail development on employment land.

·         The Environment Agency’s concerns about water contamination were significant.

·         A Member questioned the validity of the second ground for refusal set out in the report considering it hypothetical.

·         Another Member questioned the validity of the sixth ground for refusal set out in the report, noting the comment in the report that the transition of responsibilities for highway works had meant detailed costing for works has not been provided and therefore an agreed Heads of Terms was not available.

·         The use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Erection of 3 residential dwellings and associated landscaping and access works including a scheme of landscape enhancement and the reinstatement of a public footpath.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He referred to an additional representation set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.  He added that two further letters of support had been received too late for inclusion in the papers.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Daniell spoke in objection to the application.  Mr Gilbert then spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

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

·         The Parish Council’s close vote against the proposal, as set out in the report, showed there were two main views of what should happen at the site.  One view was that as a matter of principle the land should be returned to open countryside.  However, the grant of planning permission in 2004 for development meant that this was not feasible.  He could not therefore, on pragmatic grounds, support the Parish Council’s view.

·         The other view was that given that some form of development would take place on the site a judgment had to be reached as to whether a well designed sympathetic development of 3 houses, as proposed, was preferable to other development  permitted by the extant planning permission.  The entrance to the site was a concern.  If the application were to be approved it would, however, be essential to ensure that stringent conditions were attached. 

·         He was also concerned at the possibility that an application by the owner to use the site as a garage and MOT test centre might succeed, the owner contending that this was permitted by the extant planning permission.  Amongst other things, the road to the site could not cope with such traffic.

·         He considered the issue relating to the reinstatement of the footpath at the site to be a separate issue.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         That the Committee could insist on the requirement of the extant permission – erection of a building for the storage and repair of agricultural, horticultural and automotive plant and machinery.  The application, which was contrary to numerous policies, should therefore be refused.

·         One member queried why the option of a footpath diversion order had not been entertained.

·         Concern was expressed that granting permission might lead to further residential development over time.  In response the Principal Planning Officer commented that, whilst this could not be prohibited by a condition, it would be difficult to obtain permission for further development of the site since the remainder of the site formed part of the landscape restoration scheme.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had nothing to add to his previous comments.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Installation of 2 nos fully glazed draught lobbies and associated alterations to landscaping; installation of bicycle stands and replacement of glazed doors to ground, first and second floors to north east elevation.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Forward Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

A Member commented that whilst not in keeping with the design, the proposed development would be beneficial.  He requested that cycle parking be provided at the entrance to the building in addition to that at the back.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Informatives:

Date of next site inspection – 8 October 2013

Date of next meeting – 9 October 2013