Apologies were received from Councillors JW Hope MBE, RC Hunt, Brigadier P Jones CBE, PJ Watts and DB Wilcox.

The Chairman welcomed Councillors EMK Chave and J Norris as new members of the Committee.

To receive details of any Member 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 J Stone attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor JW Hope MBE.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to Minute numbers 112 and 116 being amended to reflect that Councillor AN Bridges had declared an interest in relation to agenda item 8 – Land at Mill Street , Leominster, not agenda item 7.

There were no announcements.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

In relation to application 122747/0 – land at Home Farm, Belmont, Hereford, the Development Manager confirmed that the appeal had determined that the Council did not have the required five year supply of housing.  The Chairman stated that he would arrange for information to be provided to Members on the matter.  He also agreed to review the detail provided in the report on appeals and consider if it would be useful to include information on whether an appeal related to an application determined under delegated powers or by the Planning Committee.

Site for erection of nine houses and associated development.

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

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.  She noted that if the Committee had concerns about visibility at the access, as indicated at the site visit, a condition could be imposed providing for this matter to be resolved in consultation with the local ward member.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Burridge, Vice-Chairman of Credenhill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Lewis, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr A Murphy, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The access was unsuitable.  Permission had previously been granted for an agricultural access only, subject to conditions.  There were 7 entrances on that stretch of the A480 and the traffic was heavy with almost 6,000 vehicles recorded over a 24 hour period.  There was a busy pedestrian crossing.  The location of the bus stop was also very dangerous.  Drivers did not have a good view.  There was a sharp drop and a sharp bend.  Road safety in this location was a longstanding concern with representations having been made by the Parish Council over a number of years for a bus pull in place and signage.

·         He referred to an e-mail from a Council engineer which he said described the access as sensitive and indicated that development of the site would add to an existing problem.

·         No one was totally opposed to development although there would be a loss of privacy and an impact on the existing listed buildings.

·         The Heads of Terms appended to the report had not been discussed with him as local ward member or with the Parish Council

·         He had written confirmation that a landowner would be prepared to sell land for a bus layby.

·         He urged that the application be refused or deferred for further consideration of the highway safety issues.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred to permit further consideration of a solution to the concerns about the safety of the access to the site.  The local ward member and the Parish Council should be involved in these discussions.

·         The Committee needed to be mindful of how a Planning Inspector would view the application if the Committee refused permission and an appeal was lodged.  With regard to the access the Transportation Manager had stated that standard visibility was to be provided in accordance with the Manual for Streets.  It also could not be argued that the development was an over intensification.  There were developments in the vicinity that were of a higher intensification.

·         The report stated that the five year Personal Injury Accident history recorded that there had been only one injury accident at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Proposed erection of low cost market bungalow for registered disabled person.

The application was 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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Ashcroft, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         There were several clusters of houses in the vicinity.  The proposed dwelling was not isolated.  There were close links with both Marden and Sutton St Nicholas.

·         She highlighted paragraph 4.3 of the report setting out the Housing Team’s view that the application was for someone in housing need, who could not purchase a suitable dwelling on the open market.  In addition there were no suitable affordable housing properties available.

·         The applicant’s son had specific medical needs. He was a local person and a local support network of family and friends was available to him.

·         Marden Parish Council supported the application.

·         Seven letters of support had been received and no letters of objection.

·         The development would not have any visual or landscape harm.  The access was good.

·         The Scheme was in accordance with paragraphs 5,5,14 and 5.5.17 of the Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

She invited the Committee to support the application.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         That the application should be supported, subject to a S106 agreement to ensure that property remained affordable housing in perpetuity.

·         Policies supported the development.

·         The circumstances were exceptional and the development was sustainable and supported by UDP policies H6, H10 and H13.

·         The application was finely balanced in planning policy terms.  However, the property would not be isolated.  It was sustainable.  The report acknowledged the Council did not have the required 5 year housing land supply.  Applying the test in the NPPF, the benefit of the development outweighed the harm.

·         The Committee was not responsible for supporting social care matters and policies dictated that the application should be refused on the grounds identified by officers in the report.

The Development Manager commented that sustainability was a subjective matter.  The NPPF required consideration to be given to three aspects: the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The application had social benefits, some marginal economic benefits and limited environmental impact.  It was therefore possible to argue in this case, on balance, that the benefits of the application outweighed the material disbenefits.  It was essential, however, that if planning permission were to be granted that this was conditional upon a S106 agreement to ensure that property remained affordable housing in perpetuity.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated her support for the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to a S106 agreement being agreed to ensure that the property remained affordable housing in perpetuity and officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Change of use from C3 dwelling to D1 dental surgery.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application for a site visit and consideration at a future meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Parsons, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

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

Councillor Seldon highlighted paragraph 6.7 of the report, the proximity of the development to a shop and to the Queen Elizabeth Humanities College, and the additional traffic the development would generate.  He considered that the application should be refused on the grounds of highway safety.

Councillor Lester commented on a number of aspects including:

·         Bromyard and Winslow Town Council had objected to the proposal on highway safety grounds. He too had concerns about highway safety. 

·         The proposal would entail some loss of amenity for the residents of the Hatton Park cul-de-sac because of the additional vehicle movements.

·         He welcomed the aspiration to enhance services which the application involved.

The debate opened.  Concern was expressed about the highway safety issues and a proposal was made that a site visit should be undertaken.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred for a site visit and consideration at a future meeting.

Sub-division of existing retail unit to form smaller retail unit and taxi office at Unit.

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

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors PA Andrews and EMK Chave, two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Andrews commented that the principal concern related to the amenity of residents if taxis queued in the lay by and on the roadside.  She had been assured that this would not occur and on that basis supported the application. 

Councillor Chave also doubted that there would be a difficulty caused by taxis and supported the application on that basis.

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

INFORMATIVE:

Date of next site inspection – 18 February 2014

Date of next meeting – 19 February 2014