Apologies were received from Councillor KS Guthrie, RI Matthews, RL Mayo, PJ McCaull and DB Wilcox.

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 ACR Chappell attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews, Councillor JA Hyde for Councillor RL Mayo, Councillor RJ Phillips for Councillor DB Wilcox, and Councillor J Stone for Councillor KS Guthrie.

Agenda item 7 P141917 Land West of Patrick Orchard, Canon Pyon

Councillor DW Greenow declared a pecuniary interest because he had employed the applicant as an agent for a separate application of his own and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Agenda item 8 P 133411/CD Model Farm, Hildersley, Ross-on-Wye

Councillor AJM Blackshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former Cabinet Member who had had responsibility for the Scheme.

Councillor ARC Chappell declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former Cabinet Member who had had responsibility for the Scheme.

Councillor RJ Phillips declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former Cabinet Member who had had responsibility for the Scheme and as Chairman of the Local Enterprise Partnership Funding Forum.

Agenda item 9 P141022/F Land at Pinsley Road, Leominster

Councillor AN Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of Network Rail.

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest as a relative lived in the vicinity.

Agenda item 10 – P!40903/F Land Adjacent to Hightown Cottage Peterstow.

Councillors PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, J Hardwick and JA Hyde, declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 November, 2014.

It was noted that a revised set of Minutes had been circulated correcting the omission of some conditions and an informative from Minute no 106 in the original draft.  A Member referred to correspondence questioning the omission of these matters from the original Minutes. It was confirmed that the omission had been corrected in the amended Minutes and that the amended Minutes were consistent with the decision notice.

The Planning Lawyer reported that an informative had been omitted from the decision notice issued for application P141550/O – Land West of Upper Court Road Bosbury (Minute no 107 refers).  The decision notice could not be amended and she sought and received confirmation that the Committee approved the informative as reflected in the Minutes.

Councillor J Hardwick commented tthat Minute no 102 needed to be corrected to state that he had declared an interest in relation to Agenda item 7 because he knew the applicant and some objectors.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2014, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman drew attention to the inclusion in the report template of a section explaining the reason why each application had been submitted to the Committee.

He added congratulations to Councillor PJ Edwards and his fiancée on their forthcoming marriage and also to Councillor DW Greenow and his fiancée on their forthcoming marriage.

He informed Members that it was expected that the next meeting on 21 January 2015, would need to be an all day meeting.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

(The Committee considered agenda item 8 – P133411 – Model Farm Hildersley before agenda item 7 – P141917- Land west of Patrick orchard, Canon Pyon.)

Proposed construction of 27 dwellings to include 9 affordable, new access, sustainable drainage and landscape works.

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

(Proposed construction of 27 dwellings to include 9 affordable, new access, sustainable drainage and landscape works.)

(Councillor DW Greenow left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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 G Vaughan, Chairman of Pyons Group Parish Council spoke on the Scheme.  Mr C Nugent, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Pryce, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The village had been identified as appropriate for proportionate growth.  The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2012 assessed the site as having low or minor constraints.

·         If the application was approved this would provide sufficient growth for the life of the core strategy, allowing for some infill development.

·         The applicant had consulted the Parish Council.  Some aspects relating to design and layout required further discussion.

·         The site was adjacent to the settlement boundary.  Part of the site had been identified for development in the Neighbourhood Plan.

·         He was not aware of the A4110 suffering impassable flooding at the site’s location.

·         He highlighted the internal advice set out in section 4 of the report.

·         The Parish Council was not opposed in principle to the Scheme.   However, it wanted further consideration to be given to the design of the development. 

·         It was noted that some amendments had already been made to the Scheme.  He requested that the applicant, Parish Council and officers should give further consideration to the density of development on the southern part of the site.

·         On balance he supported the application.

In discussion the following principal points were made on the application:

·         The communication between the applicant and the Parish Council was welcomed. 

·         The site was in a location that had been identified in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The development was well planned.

·         It was requested that conditions relating to slab levels and surface water management were carefully applied.

·         The retention and provision of trees was welcomed although it was noted that they needed to be properly managed.

·         Funding towards road safety was preferable.

·         The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it was the Council’s intention to manage the public open space in the first instance before seeking to find a partner to do so.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his support.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary.

Hybrid planning application for the development of employment uses including B1 (16,500 sq.m GFA), B2 (8,900 sq.m GFA) and B8 (4,000 sq.m) including full details of the access, internal road infrastructure and circulation routes, and landscaping within a landscape buffer zone providing surface water attenuation and planting.

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

(Hybrid planning application for the development of employment uses including B1 (16,500 sq.m GFA), B2 (8,900 sq.m GFA) and B8 (4,000 sq.m) including full details of the access, internal road infrastructure and circulation routes, and landscaping within a landscape buffer zone providing surface water attenuation and planting.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

He indicated his support for the development and the employment opportunities it would provide noting that the Highways Agency had now withdrawn its objection to the access to the site.  He requested that residents should be provided with reassurance that the development would not increase the risk of flooding and that there should be an appropriate buffer between employment uses on the site and the adjoining residential areas.  It would also be important to keep the tenant of the farm informed as any development took place.

In discussion the following principal points were made on the application:

·         The local ward member’s comments on the need to ensure that the drainage arrangements were sound and that an appropriate buffer zone was provided for the adjoining residential areas were supported.

·         Landscaping would be important to ensure the business park blended in to its surroundings.

·         Such a site was needed in the area.

·         It was requested that reports on applications involving the use of agricultural land should state the grade of the land.

The local ward member had no additional comment.

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

Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.

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

(Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 29 dwellings with associated private drive, landscaping and external works.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which had been deferred by the Committee on 29 October, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He highlighted correspondence from the Environment Agency and the proposal that officers be authorised to approve the application after consultation with the Chairman and local members, subject to the objections raised being addressed.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Tomkins the applicant spoke in support.

Neither of the two local ward members had been able to attend the meeting.  Councillor JM Bartlett had submitted a statement.  This had been circulated to Members of the Committee.  The principal points were:

·         The recommended provision of a clause requiring an overage payment was to be welcomed.

·         Concerns remained that the proposal represented overdevelopment which would have knock on effects on infrastructure such as Pinsley Road.

·         In relation to drainage and flooding issues here were outstanding objections from the land drainage engineer, Welsh Water and the Environment Agency.

·         In summary there were still fundamental questions and outstanding objections that had not been resolved and the application was therefore not sound.

In discussion the following principal points were made on the application:

·         The discussions that had taken place with the applicants had resulted in improvements such as the inclusion of a clause requiring an overage payment.

·         The concerns over flooding and drainage expressed by the Environment Agency, Welsh Water and the land drainage engineer were serious and of concern too to the adjoining residents.

·         The development represented overdevelopment.

·         The development would not be of benefit to the area or the Town.  It did not conserve or enhance the location.

·         A park would be preferable.

·         The traffic generated by the development would create problems.  The width of the road was below the Council’s standard.

·         The development would provide starter homes and meet a housing need.

·         A concern was expressed about the quality of the development.  Smaller properties need not be of poor design.

·         Account should be taken of the reasons for the Town Council’s objection to the proposal

The Planning Lawyer commented that it would be quite difficult to defend a refusal of the application in the event of an appeal given the previous grant of permission for development on the site and the weight that needed to be given to the presumption in favour of sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Development Manager commented that the scheme was a reduction on the  30 dwellings previously approved.  He supported the view that an appeal would be difficult to defend.  There was no objection from the Transportation Manager. The principal reason for deferring the scheme had been addressed by the provision of an overage clause.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Proposed erection of two dwellings.

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

(Proposed erection of two dwellings.)

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 it was proposed to amend the recommendation to provide for it to commence within 3 years rather than 1 year in accordance with Department of Communities and Local Government guidance.

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

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

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         Peterstow was not a defined main village in the Unitary Development Plan.  However, it had many amenities and the emerging Core Strategy identified Peterstow as a village that could accommodate proportionate housing growth of approximately 14% (approx. 18 dwellinghouses).  The development represented a small step to meet need in a sympathetic way.

·         The Parish Council had no objection.

·         The Scheme had been designed to have the minimum impact.  Conditions would protect the setting.

·         The development was appropriate.

In discussion the following principal points were made on the application:

·         The wording in the report that no weight could be given to the Neighbourhood Plan at this stage was questioned.  It was suggested that “very little weight” would be a better phrase.

·         The development was in an appropriate setting on the edge of the village, was well designed of modest size and sustainable.

·         It was confirmed that there was no other access to the site.

The local ward member had no additional comment to make.

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

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

            Reason: - Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

2      The development shall be caried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans (including materials specified thereon):-

·         Application Site Plan – Drawing number 13/707.01A (Scale 1:1000) received 24 March 2014;

·         Proposed Site Plan – Drawing number 13/707.04D  (Scale 1:200);

·         Proposed Ground Floor Plan for Plot 1 – Drawing number 13/707.05B (Scale 1:50 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

·         Proposed First Floor Plan for Plot 1 – Drawing number 13/707.06B (Scale 1:50 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

·         Proposed Elevations Plot 1 – Drawing number 13/707.10D (Scale 1:100 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

·         Proposed Ground Floor Plan for Plot 2 – Drawing number 13/707.07B (Scale 1:50 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

·         Proposed First Floor Plan for Plot 2 – Drawing number 13/707.08/B (Scale 1:50 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

·         Proposed Elevations for Plot 2 Drawing number 13/707.11C (Scale 1:100 @ A2) received 31 October 2014;

Reason:  To ensure adherence to the approved plans and in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.