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

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 R Preece attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

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

Agenda item 8 – 131732/F The Slip Tavern, Much Marcle Ledbury

Councillor AM Atkinson declared a non-pecuniary interest because one of the other licensed premises in the area was one of his customers.

Agenda item 9 – 131981/F Barn at Everstone Farm, Peterstow, Ross-on-Wye

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 10 – 132446/O Land at Junction of A44 and Panniers Lane, Bromyard, Herefordshire

Councillor GR Swinford declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as his Partnership had acted as Planning Agent.

Agenda item 11 – 132448/O Land Adjacent to Longlands, Lower Hardwick Lane, Bromyard, Herefordshire

Councillor JG Lester declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor GR Swinford declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as his Partnership had acted as Planning Agent.

Agenda item 14 – 132674/O Land East of Weobley Primary School, Weobley, Herefordshire

Councillor MAF Hubbard declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to recording the declarations of non-pecuniary interests made at that meeting by Councillors BA Durkin and J Hardwick for agenda item 10 – 132033/F and 132034/C – Land at Chestnuts the Avenue, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Committee.

There were no announcements.

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

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting for further information and discussion.

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, Mrs A Cook, Chair of Much Birch Parish Council, spoke expressing concerns about aspects of the application.  Mr K James and Ms R Rigby spoke in objection and Mr A Padmore, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There was local opposition to the development of a greenfield site.  There were other sites more appropriate for residential development.

·         The proposed standards for the housing could be improved with an insistence upon greater energy efficiency.

·         The proposed footpath linking the development to the west and to Wormelow was inadequate.  A suitable footpath could be provided if the applicant made available land within the applicant’s ownership.

·         There had been a lack of consultation on the revised proposals.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Highway and pedestrian safety was of paramount importance.  The proposed footpath was not of an appropriate standard.  Account had to be taken of the large agricultural vehicles using Tump Lane, the amount of traffic and its speed.  Alongside these concerns about safety, in the absence of an appropriate footpath the sustainability of the development had to be questioned.

·         There was clearly the possibility of further applications for residential development in the area.  The Committee should insist that appropriate pedestrian access was provided, making this a condition of granting planning permission.

·         It should be noted with regard to the proposal to build properties to the code 3 standard for sustainable homes that that was the minimum standard the Council considered acceptable for affordable housing.

·         The need for affordable housing was acknowledged.  It was noted that the scheme attracted grant funding which would be lost if the houses were not built before March 2015.

·         A suggestion was made that the Committee should defer consideration of the application to permit further discussions with the landowner to seek to resolve the concerns about pedestrian access.

·         The Development Manager commented that the possibility of future applications in the location was not a relevant consideration.  The Committee had to consider, not whether the scheme was ideal, but whether it was satisfactory, given the need for affordable housing.  A decision to grant planning permission could not be made conditional on the provision of a footpath to a standard required by the Committee.   Traffic Regulation Orders were also outside the Committee’s remit.  It would be an option to defer the application to allow for discussions with the applicant over the possibility of negotiating a better footpath as part of the associated S106 agreement.  However, it had to be borne in mind that affordability of the scheme may make it difficult to reach agreement.

·         The Principal Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Change of use from public house on ground floor and residential unit on first floor to a single 6 bedroom detached dwelling.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and noted that a statement of positive and proactive working needed to be added to the recommendation as an informative.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr R Page, a resident, and Mr S Crowther, of CAMRA, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ranford, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There was local concern over the loss of an amenity.  There were other premises in the vicinity but the Slip Tavern offered something different.

·         The report set out the drop in turnover over the past five years.  However, there was an offer to purchase and run the premises as a public house.  He considered that the local people wanted the local amenity to remain and planning policy supported this approach in principle. He therefore supported the officer recommendation that the application should be refused.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         A Member suggested that the Committee should concern itself solely with whether a public house in that location was sustainable.    An offer had been made and the application should be refused, providing an opportunity for the viability of the premises to be put to the test.

·         It was noted that the applicant was requesting more time to market the property.  However, it was suggested that the site should have been thoroughly marketed before a planning application had been submitted and there should therefore be no further deferral.

·         The Development Manger commented that the price at which the property was marketed was a relevant consideration and considered that the application should be determined.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated his view that the application should be refused.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

Change of use of existing barn to 5 dwellings.

The application was approved, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Joseph, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

She supported the arguments advanced by the applicant’s agent in support of the scheme and commented on a number of issues including:

·         The development provided much needed affordable housing.

·         Facilities were accessible.

·         The access off the A49 was adequate.

·         The current permission for a change of the farm building to B1 light industrial use was inappropriate in that location.

·         An exception to policy was justified.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Residential use was preferable to B1 use which would generate considerable commercial traffic.

·         The development was sustainable.  There was access to a bus service and other services and facilities.

·         The type of development proposed would meet a local need.  It would help to support the rural economy.

·         The Committee needed to be cautious about refusing the application.  The dwelling was not “isolated” and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework would therefore not apply.

·         It was suggested that the developer should be required to make the properties as economical as possible to use given the cost of utilities.

·         The comparative merits of retaining the building and developing it, or new build, were discussed.  Some suggested the proposal represented poor design and was not sustainable; others thought the scheme was a good design and was certainly an improvement on the existing building.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There was a need for such housing and there remained a shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply.

·         It was suggested that there should be a condition removing permitted development rights.

·         The report made clear that the housing was not affordable housing as defined in policy but was low cost market housing with no legal mechanism to ensure affordability in the long term.  It was therefore questioned whether the properties would remain within reach of local people in the longer term.

·         The proposal contravened a number of policies.

The Development Manager commented that the proposal was not on its own sustainable.  There was a balance to be struck.  He did not consider the arguments in support for the development outweighed the reasons for refusing it.  Granting permission would undermine a number of policies.

The Principal Planning Officer commented on the characteristics of an affordable housing scheme as defined by policy and how this contrasted with the proposed development.  He noted that the applicant could have proposed an affordable housing development as defined by policy but had chosen not to do so.  The application also contained no proposals for energy efficient measures.  If the Committee was minded to approve the development he suggested there should be conditions relating to use of materials, removal of permitted development rights and a hedgerow management scheme.

Members cited a number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Site for construction of 2 no. dwellings.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor GR Swinford having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and an amendment made following the publication of the agenda was provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr R Page, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillors JG Lester and A Seldon, the local ward members, spoke on the application, indicating their support.

RESOLVED That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

New three bedroom dwelling with access drive, parking and garden. 

(The Committee will adjourn following consideration of this item and reconvene at 2.00 pm to consider the remaining items listed below.)

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor GR Swinford having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and noted that notwithstanding the under provision of housing in the County, refusal was justified for the reasons set out in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JG Lester and A Seldon, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Seldon questioned whether the development was isolated, drawing attention to the existing development and the traffic it generated, noting also the amount of pedestrian usage of the lane which was close to one of Bromyard’s major public footpaths.

Councillor Lester spoke in support of the application.  He commented that the development was not remote from facilities; there were already 7 dwellings on the lane; the surrounding area was likely to be the site for some 500 houses.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The development did not physically relate to Bromyard and was premature.

There were considerable access problems.  The access road is dark and narrow. There is no proper pavement, no lit access nor is there a reasonable walking distance to amenities as required for sustainable development.

One additional dwelling in the location would not have an adverse impact and with 7 dwellings already in the location the proposed development was not isolated.

The Development Manager commented that the development did not meet the requirements of the interim protocol for developments outside of adopted settlement boundaries. It was isolated and premature.

The legal officer noted that the statement of positive and proactive working would be acknowledged and added to the decision.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.  Councillor Lester reiterated his support for the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Replacement of extant Planning Permission S120972/CD.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.  

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor R Preece, one of the local ward members, spoke on the application.  He indicated his support, noting that the principal concern related to traffic management and the introduction of a traffic management plan had significantly reduced any problems.

The debate opened and some concerns were expressed about the impact on residents. The Development Manager confirmed that if the nursery did not operate in accordance with the traffic management plan it would be in breach of its planning permission and enforcement action could be taken.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Residential development.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

The debate opened, with discussion of the Parish Council’s request, set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report, that within the Section 106 agreement the time period for taking up the affordable homes should be increased from 84 working days to 120 working days to increase the opportunity for local people to apply for the houses. 

The Development Manager agreed to undertake further discussions on this matter as part of the Section 106 agreement.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a S106 agreement, officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers.

Proposed demolition of existing metal clad storage building and erection of two new dwellings with associated garaging, cycle storage and landscaping.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Hope MBE, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the officer’s appraisal of the scheme set out at paragraphs 6.2-6.4 of the report and the presumption in favour of development.

He also requested that a position statement on the five year housing supply should be sent to every Parish Council so that everyone knew where they stood.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the public footpath to which the proposed parking area was close would be protected.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Proposed new dwelling with attached garage.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Hope MBE, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the officer’s appraisal of the scheme set out at paragraphs 6.2-6.4 of the report and the presumption in favour of development.

Some regret was expressed at the possible demolition of a chimney on Standale to widen access and the detrimental effect this would have on the character of the village, noting also the traffic calming effect of the narrower access.  Having been advised that no condition could be imposed to require the chimney’s preservation it was proposed that a note should be added to the decision notice requesting that the chimney should be retained.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission DCNC0009/1820/CD – to allow the use of the multi-use room for the purpose other than ancillary to The Hope Centre, up to 4 no. council staff as part of the Council’s Better Ways of Working Policy.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, adding that Bromyard and Winslow Town Council had now indicated its support for the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Lester, one of the local ward members, spoke in support of the application commenting that his fellow local ward member, Councillor A Seldon, and the Town Council were also in support

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Date of next site inspection – 7 January 2014

Date of next meeting – 8 January 2014