Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, RC Hunt and PJ Watts.

To receive details of any Member 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 7: 140285/O Land at Porthouse Farm, Tenbury Road, Bromyard, Herefordshire

Councillor JG Lester declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Governor of Queen Elizabeth Humanities College, Bromyard.

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Governor of St Peter’s Primary School, Bromyard

Agenda item 9: 133251/F The Hereford Academy, Malrlbrook Road, Hereford

Mr K Bishop (Development Manager) declared a non-pecuniary interest as his football club used the pitch for training and Herefordshire Football Association, of which he was a Director, had sent in a letter of support of the application.

Agenda item11: 132851/O Land South of Hampton Dene Road, Hereford

Councillor DB Wilcox declared a non-pecuniary interest because he lived in the vicinity.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reminded Members that a seminar for all Councillors on the 5 year housing land supply had been arranged for the afternoon of 22 April.

He also reported that he and representatives of some neighbouring authorities were due to attend a meeting with the Planning Minister.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

The Development Manager confirmed that where it was considered appropriate the Council did apply for costs against appellants.

Hybrid application – part outline for 76 dwellings (35% affordable) and a business centre for B1 uses, with all matters except access to be reserved.  Part full, for the development of a single B1 business unit and the means of access thereto.

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

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, including a proposed change to the recommendation.

He added that, following discussion, it was proposed that the educational contributions included in the Heads of Terms appended to the report should be subject to further discussion with the local ward members and the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council spoke in support of the Scheme. 

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 commented that it had been a painstaking process but the current application represented an acceptable compromise that was to everyone’s benefit.  He added that the history of the application was an example of how important it was that the Council listened to local communities to avoid discord.

Councillor Lester agreed with Councillor Seldon’s comments and that as stated at paragraph 6.11 of the report the application represented a reasonable compromise.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Town Council had agreed to support the application subject to six conditions, all of which had been met.  The work of the Town Council and the applicants was to be commended.

·         It was proposed that a condition should be imposed governing the hours of operation of the industrial units.

·         It had been fortunate that it had been possible to reach a compromise, noting the grounds on which an Inspector had rejected an appeal by the applicants against the Committee’s refusal of an earlier application.  The Committee was not in a position to act so robustly in a number of other cases because of the national constraints now upon it and the potential this carried for there to be conflict with the wishes of the local community needed to be recognised.

·         It was requested that the development should be completed to a high standard.

·         The Development Manager commented that it had been a long process but the community and the developer had worked together in an exemplary fashion to achieve an acceptable solution.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated their support for the Scheme.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to:

The completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report, as amended in accordance with the Committee Update deleting reference in the third clause of the Draft Heads of Terms Agreement to affordable dwellings,and subject to consultation with the Chairman and the local ward members on the educational contributions contained within the Heads of Terms; and

The conditions set out in the report and any varied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Site for erection of 40 dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed units and associated parking. 

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

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. 

He added that additional photographs had been submitted showing the discharge of water onto the road in the village.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Corbett, of Weobley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Andrews, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Harris, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He endorsed the concerns expressed by the Parish Council.

·         There was local concern about the rate of change in the village the development would bring and its impact. 

·         The junction serving the development could not be improved because it was lined by historic buildings and an increase in traffic could therefore cause problems.

·         Drainage was a concern.

·         If the development proceeded he asked if the hedgerow fronting the development could be restored following the construction of the development

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         A number of Members expressed concern about the absence of any detail of how foul and surface water drainage issues would be managed and indeed whether they could be managed satisfactorily.  The current system was itself clearly inadequate. The Development Manager commented that the existing system in the village was considered acceptable by Welsh Water who had not objected to the proposal.  He added that all new applications were expected to have a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme.  New legislation was expected specifically dealing with this aspect.  Welsh Water was insisting on conditions and he reminded the Committee of the full wording of condition L04.  The detailed proposals would come forward when the reserved matters were considered.  Drainage proposals would have to be approved by Welsh Water. 

·         In relation to the concern about the pace of development in the village, the Development Manager commented that it should be borne in mind that the developer would build at a gradual rate.

·         The expert advice provided to the Committee supported the application.  There were no strong grounds for refusal.  However, it was to be regretted that the developer was not presenting an application that offered anything such as energy efficient, state of the art housing to enthuse the Committee and encourage it to welcome the application.  It was to be noted in considering the quality of the development that the village was a tourist attraction. 

·         It was suggested that whilst there may be no grounds for refusal the developer could be made fully aware of the concerns within the village and encouraged to make the development one in which the community could take pride. 

·         Development did carry with it some benefits for community sustainability.

·         The Development Manager noted that the Planning Team worked to national guidelines in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Continued variation of condition 21 of Planning Permission DMS/112675/F dated 22/11/2011.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

It was noted that Hereford City Council had no objection to the proposal.

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

INFORMATIVES:

Site for erection of 3 detached dwellings.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He added that Cusop Parish Council was developing a Neighbourhood Plan.  A further representation had been received suggesting there was a covenant on the land.  However, this was not a material planning consideration.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs K Lovegrove, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr D Jones, the Applicant, and Mr A Bevan, 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, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Applicant was a local resident running a small business that offered employment.  The development was small, sustainable, and in accordance with the aims of the Golden Valley Project.

·         Account had to be taken of the fact that the Council had not identified the required five year housing land supply and the presumption in the National Planning Policy Framework was in favour of sustainable development in such circumstances.

·         The report stated that the application site was outside the settlement boundary as defined by UDP policy H4.  However, in reality it was within the existing settlement.

·         There would not be a significant impact on traffic.

·         It would not be a precedent for further development.  Each application had to be considered on its merits.

·         Cusop Parish Council had supported the application although the matter was contentious in the community.

·         He believed that the applicant would take account of points raised in objection to the proposal at the reserved matters stage.

Several Members commented that they understood why there were local objections to the proposal.  However, planning policies supported the Scheme’s approval.

The Development Manager commented that although several previous applications had been refused the National Planning Policy Framework was now in place containing the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  Local concerns were noted.  However, three housing units could be appropriately located within the application site to minimise their impact.  Quality of design could be discussed at the reserved matters stage.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He expressed the hope that relationships within the community would be rebuilt and that the development of a Neighbourhood Plan would prove beneficial.

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

Residential development (up to 120 dwellings), access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

The decision on this application is now within the jurisdiction of a Planning Inspector.

The Committee indicated that if it had been able to determine the application  it would have been minded to delegate authority to officers to refuse planning permission, 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.

He highlighted that the applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination with the Planning Inspectorate.  The Inspectorate had confirmed that the appeal was valid and that jurisdiction for decision-taking on the application was no longer with the local planning authority.

The Principal Planning Officer stated it was proposed, however, as indicated in the changed recommendation in the update to the Committee that Members made a resolution confirming how they would have determined the application were it within their jurisdiction.  This would inform the forthcoming appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr N White, Chairman of Hampton Bishop Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme. 

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He supported the Parish Council’s principal grounds for objecting to the Scheme: concern about the risk of increased flooding and the effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

·         He noted that when the applicant had given a public presentation on the matter they had indicated an intention to build 95 dwellings rather than up to 120 as now proposed.

·         The comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscapes) set out in the report condemned the Scheme.

·         In Herefordshire Council’s Urban Fringe Sensitivity Analysis (USFA) (January 2010), the site was described as lying within a zone defined as having High Sensitivity.  The slope on which the development would in part be built was described as highly visible.

·         A development of 120 dwellings was inappropriate in this prominent, historic and highly sensitive location.

·         He suggested that policies DR1, LA2, LA3 and HBA4 were grounds for refusal.

·         The applicants were arguing that the Section 106 agreement should be Community Infrastructure Levy compliant and there was no certainty as to any contribution that would be forthcoming to benefit the community.

·         Traffic calming measures were required together with a solution to car parking pressures associated with the local schools.

Councillor JLV Kenyon, an adjoining Ward Member, was invited to speak.  He spoke in support of the Scheme and commented on a number of issues including:

·         There appeared to be little public opposition to the Scheme.

·         There was an identified need for new housing in the area including affordable housing and bungalows.

·         The Section 106 agreement provided an opportunity to bring about a number of improvements to the benefit of community including measures to address traffic calming and traffic generated by the schools, improvements to Ledbury Road and access to the City.  School capacity was of concern.  A contribution to school infrastructure would therefore be needed.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The comments of the local ward member and the Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had highlighted the impact of the scheme on a sensitive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

Site for proposed dwelling.

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

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 K Lawton, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Goldsworthy, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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:

·         The application site was within a conservation area.

·         The access to the site was of concern.

·         There had been 18 letters of objection.

·         Flooding in the area was of concern.

·         The development was contrary to policies LA2, LA3, DR7 and HBA6 and NPPF paragraphs 14, 69 and 93.

·         She urged the Committee to refuse the application.  However, if it was minded to approve it she requested that consideration be given to providing that there should only be one dwelling on the application site.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         There did not appear to be grounds upon which the application could be refused. 

·         Concerns about development in a conservation area were acknowledged, however, adjoining development had already been permitted.

·         Members thought it unlikely that any further development would be permitted because of the access.  It was advised that it would be difficult to apply a condition to that effect.  However, it was proposed that a note be attached to the Committee’s decision for future reference stating that the Committee considered the site suitable for development of one dwelling only, having regard to the access constraints.

·         Any further development on the application site and the adjoining area would be subject to a further planning application. 

·         It was requested that it be registered that at the reserved matters stage Members would wish careful consideration to be given to slab levels, overall height and siting within the development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and welcomed the Committee’s stance on any further development.

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

Date of next site inspection – 22 April 2014

Date of next meeting – 23 April 2014