Apologies were received from Councillors PJ Edwards and RL Mayo.

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 JF Knipe attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor PJ Edwards.

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

Agenda item 7: Land Adjacent To The Petrol Station And Mill Lane, Lea, Ross-On-Wye.

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

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 17 and 24 September 2014.

Minutes of 17 September 2014

The accuracy of Minute no 66 was questioned. 

The Planning Lawyer and the Development Manager commented and provided clarification in support of the accuracy of the printed Minute.

Minutes of 24 September 2014

In relation to Minute no 73 a Member remarked that as a result of his professional knowledge he had been able to provide the Committee with an explanation of how the new railway crossing at Mill Street would operate and suggested that it would be useful if this were reflected in the Minutes.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2014, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman; and

              (b)     the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2014, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to including reference to the effect that: “a Councillor as a result of his professional knowledge provided the Committee with an explanation of how the new railway crossing at Mill Street would operate”, and recording the apologies of Councillor DW Greenow.

The Chairman informed the Committee that it was expected that the Committee’s meeting scheduled for 29 October would be an all-day meeting.

Site for a proposed residential development for 39 dwellings.

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

(Site for a proposed residential development for 39 dwellings.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  This included reference to the fact that all vehicular access to serve the development would be from the A40 only.  In addition, the spire of the listed church could be seen from the site but the development was not detrimental to the Church’s setting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs V Eversfield and Mr M Haines, local residents, spoke in objection to the Scheme.  Ms J Joseph, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The majority of Lea Parish Council and Lea Action Group supported the application.

·         He complimented officers on the work that had been undertaken with the applicant to seek to mitigate the effects the development would have on local residents, a matter of paramount importance.

·         He acknowledged the situation created by the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply.  However, he remarked that the village currently contained 218 dwellings.  There were four current planning applications in the locality which, if all were approved would amount to an additional 150 dwellings.  The site that was the subject of the application before the Committee was the Parish Council’s preferred site.

·         The development was in the centre of the village and would support the local amenities.  The school was within walking distance and the developer would provide a new pedestrian crossing.

·         The biggest challenge facing Lea was flooding.  The S106 agreement provided a substantial sum for flood alleviation matters.  This would attract additional Government funding, enabling flooding in Lea to be eradicated to the significant benefit of the residents.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The flood alleviation works were clearly of benefit.

·         The settlement was outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary.

·         Account should be taken of the comments of the Conservation Officer (Landscape).

·         It was requested that the provision of high level sustainable buildings was encouraged at the reserved matters stage.

·         Whilst acknowledging the absence of a five year housing land supply, there was some concern about the potential impact on the village if all the current applications for development were to be approved.  Clarification was sought on how pending applications would be considered if the application before the Committee was approved.  The Development Manager commented that each application had to be considered on its merits. 

·         The development was too large.  Smaller developments around the village would be a better approach.

·         The site was close to amenities.

·         The site had been identified in the Strategic Housing Land Assessment Appraisal.

The application was in outline and it would be important to ensure that there was appropriate consultation on the reserved matters.  It was requested that particular consideration should be given to the concerns raised by the public speakers about the impact of the scheme.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Proposed change of use of land from agriculture to a one family travellers site, with stationing of one static mobile home, two touring caravans, new access, ablution block and septic tank.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with provision for consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member.

(Proposed change of use of land from agriculture to a one family travellers site, with stationing of one static mobile home, two touring caravans, new access, ablution block and septic tank.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He reported that one further letter of support for the Scheme had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Hughes, a representative of some local residents spoke in spoke in objection to the Scheme. 

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

He commented that the Parish Council had no objection in principle.  However, it had had some concerns regarding the scale of the drawings submitted with the application which had made it hard for the Parish Council to form a judgment on the application.  He supported the Parish Council’s request that more detailed drawings should be submitted prior to a decision being made.  He noted also that a Government Consultation: “Planning and Travellers - proposed changes to planning policy and guidance”, was shortly to be concluded.  He therefore suggested that it would be appropriate for the Committee to defer consideration of the matter.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Some concern was expressed about the ability to ensure that conditions on the application were adhered to and enforced.

·         There was criticism that planning policy countenanced applications of this nature in open countryside locations.

·         The argument advanced in the report that the application represented sustainable development was questioned.

·         The Transportation Manager’s assessment that there was no objection on highway grounds was supported.  Reference was made to observation of the behaviour of traffic on the site visit.

·         It was noted that the applicants had longstanding connections to the local area, owned the land and contributed to the local economy.

·         There remained a shortfall in provision of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers.

·         It was noted, with reference to the representations made by the Parish Council, that the report stated that the plans that had been submitted were of an appropriate, acceptable accuracy and detail.

·         The applicants had submitted the application prior to seeking to undertake any development and appeared willing to comply with conditions.

·         The development was of a sensible scale and utilised a modest proportion of the entire site.

·         It was proposed that the application should be supported and conditions finalised after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions.  He clarified the landscaping conditions.  He also confirmed that the Government’s consultation on “Planning and Travellers - proposed changes to planning policy and guidance” was to conclude on 23 November.  However, it was understood that significant objections on the basis that proposals breached the Human Rights Act were already being prepared.  There were a number of other single sites already around the village and the existence of an existing local authority site had no bearing on the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Proposed 1 no. two bedroom bungalow with 2 off road parking spaces.

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

(Proposed 1 no. two bedroom bungalow with 2 off road parking spaces.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

He reported that no local residents had notified him of any concerns and he therefore supported the application.

The Development Manager commented that two letters had been received about the application.  The concerns these raised were addressed by the recommended conditions.

It was noted that the Town Council supported the application.

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

Date of next site inspection – 28 October 2014

Date of next meeting – 29 October 2014