Apologies were received from Councillor FM Norman.

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

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

Agenda item 10 – 132033/F & 132034/C – Land at Chestnuts, the Avenue, Ross –on –Wye, Herefordshire

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a pecuniary interest in respect of a contract he held with a person who may be interested in the development.  He also declared non-pecuniary interests as Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Committee; a member of the Management Committee of the Conservative Club and a governor of St Joseph’s Primary both of which properties were near to the Chestnuts.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Residential development comprising 20 open market homes and 10 affordable homes.

The application was 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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Davis, Vice-Chairman of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council,  and Mrs Rolfe, a resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr J Spreckley the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The proposed development was not sustainable because the access off the A438 was below standard and demonstrably unsafe.   The A438 was a very busy road.    There was a risk of traffic backing up as vehicles waited to turn into the development and heavy lorries hurrying up and down the A438 posed a particular hazard.  Visibility could also be affected by mist and fog caused by proximity to the River Lugg.  The traffic survey had been undertaken at the wrong location and did not reflect the actual speeds of vehicles passing the development site itself.

·         The proposed access arrangements acknowledged the difficulty by seeking to maximise the available land for the access.  However, this had the effect of making the access run up against adjoining cottages whose occupants’ access would therefore be directly onto the highway.

·         The footpath leading to the village was narrow and single file.  Parents, for example, with a pushchair and another child would be at risk. The suggestion that railings might be put up to separate the footpath from the highway entailed a risk to the foundations of the C17 properties alongside the footpath and the possibility of a claim for damages.

·         Cotts Lane was used as a rat run and was not a suitable alternative pedestrian access.

·         There had been a lack of engagement by the developers with the local community.

·         An application for a smaller development nearby off the A438 had been refused planning permission because it was out of character.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Traffic Manager’s comments did not reflect the reality of the situation and the volume of traffic that the development would generate both from residents and vehicles servicing the development.  Both usability and visibility needed to be considered.

·         Pedestrian safety was a concern.  The footpath to the village alongside the A438 was single file and raised above the highway.  Any pedestrian who slipped ran the risk of falling into the road.  The Council could do nothing to require pedestrians to use an alternative route.  In addition, the possible use of Cotts Lane as a pedestrian route did not form part of the application and that lane also had no pavement.

·         The lack of consultation by the developers with the community and provision of information was completely at odds with the provisions in the Localism Act 2011.

·         Linear development would change Lugwardine’s character.

·         There was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Provision of 14 affordable homes and associated ancillary uses.

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

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.  He added that two further letters of objection had been received but these raised no new points.  He highlighted the intention to recommend a modification to either condition 4 set out in the printed recommendation or the Section 106 agreement to ensure that maintenance liability for the proposed balancing pond was properly addressed.  He also added that it was proposed that there should be a condition requiring that the dwellings had tiled roofs.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs B Mark, Chairman of Orleton Parish Council, spoke on the application.  Mr C Mitchell, a resident, spoke in objection and Mr P Sutton the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor WLS Bowen, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There was a demand for affordable housing in the local community. The Scheme complied with Unitary Development Plan policies, was on the edge of the village boundary, and would help to ensure that Orleton remained a living village.

·         The project had been community led with close working with the developer to improve the design of the scheme and other aspects.

·         The site had emerged as the only viable one after a prolonged exercise and investigation of 26 sites.

·         The site had community facilities within reach.  There was a concern about the absence of a footpath but Orleton was a rural village. It was hoped that a village gateway could be developed that would slow traffic.

·         Landscaping would be satisfactory.

·         He considered that the proposed measures would reduce flooding problems. Severn Trent had said that the existing sewerage system, over the capacity of which some concerns had been expressed, could accommodate an additional 20 dwellings.  It was essential, however, that Severn Trent met its legal duty to ensure that the system did cope.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was suggested that the Section 106 agreement should be used to ensure that maintenance liability for the proposed balancing pond was properly resolved.

·         In response to a question about traffic calming the Planning Officer stated that the Transport Manager considered there to be low usage of the road.  Traffic calming measures would have to be led by the Parish Council and the community.

·         Regret was expressed that more had not been done to ensure the sustainability of the development by designing the properties to minimise energy usage and costs.

·         The engagement with the community and the level of consultation was welcomed.

·         The site had a negative impact on the landscape that could not be mitigated and at 120 metres from the village was not close enough.

·         Concern was expressed that Severn Trent would not ensure that the sewerage system would cope and make improvements.

·         It was requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Proposed erection of 12 affordable dwellings, comprising 2 and 3 bed houses.

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

The Schedule of Committee Updates contained a change to the officer recommendation, proposing that planning permission be granted subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period which was still ongoing.

In the circumstances, in the light of representations made at the meeting, it was proposed to defer consideration of the application.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred pending completion of the consultation period.

(The meeting adjourned between 12.05 and 12.10 pm)

Demolition of post war building and erection of 4 Dwellings.

The Committee approved the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation, subject to amended conditions.

(Councillor PGH Cutter declared a pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and left the meeting for the duration of the meeting.)

(Councillor BA Durkin (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair)

The 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.  An additional condition was proposed.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Utting spoke on behalf of Ross-on-Wye Town Council.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor AM Atkinson, one of the two local ward members, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He had always expected that the site would be developed.  The reduction from five to four houses was welcomed.  Overall the Scheme was in keeping with the area.

·         He asked whether the height of the buildings could be reconsidered.

·         The main impact of the Scheme was on Mulberry Lodge and Chasewood Lodge.  There was some concern that large windows would overlook Mulberry House.  By setting the houses back from the road they were also close to the boundary wall of the neighbouring properties and there was a concern they might overshadow them.  He requested that mitigation measures be discussed further with the local ward members and residents

·         He also requested that steps be taken to ensure that any damage to the new road surface by the site was made good at the developer’s expense.

The debate opened and the following principal point was made:  it was proposed that local members should be involved in finalising mitigation measures, noting in particular concerns about glazing to the rear of the proposed new dwelling and the overlooking of neighbouring properties.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He requested that a condition in relation to glazing be imposed.

RESOLVED:

That subject to no further objections raising additional material considerations by the end of the consultation period the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers and subject to local ward members being consulted on mitigation measures:

Date of next site inspection – 10 December 2013

Date of next meeting – 11 December 2013