Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, PJ Edwards, DW Greenow, J Hardwick, RI Matthews and FM Norman.

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 JM Bartlett attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor FM Norman, Councillor CM Bartrum substituted for Councillor PA Andrews, Councillor WLS Bowen for Councillor J Hardwick, Councillor ARC Chappell for Councillor RI Matthews, Brig P Jones for Councillor DW Greenow and Councillor DC Taylor for Councillor PJ Edwards.

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

The Chairman noted that two applications on the agenda had been submitted by Members of the Council who were also Members of the Committee and as such known to all Members of the Committee.  He invited Members to consider whether they knew the Members concerned to a degree that warranted a specific interest being declared.

Agenda item 7: P141828/F Mill Field, Fownhope

Councillor WLS Bowen declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor AN Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor BA Durkin declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

(Councillor EMK Chave commented that in representations made to Members it had been suggested that since the applicants were members of the Committee, other members of the Committee would know about their applications. She stated for the record that the first she had known of either application was when she received the papers for the meeting.)

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 21 January 2015.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed residential development of 22 open market family homes and 11 affordable homes.

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

(Proposed residential development of 22 open market family homes and 11 affordable homes.)

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 impact on the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and whether the proposed development represented a major development within the local context were the critical issues.  Officers had concluded that the development was not a major development.  He drew attention to the reference in the update to the intervention of the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) for the Department for Communities and Local Government and a proposed change to the recommendation recommending that the Committee be minded to approve the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Simmons, Chairman of Fownhope Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Whitmey, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Spreckley, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor WLS Bowen spoke in the role of the local ward member, having acted in that capacity on behalf of local residents for this planning application because the local ward member Councillor J Hardwick was the applicant.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Planning Group opposed the application.

·         The application was within the AONB and outside but adjoining the settlement boundary for Fownhope.

·         Account needed to be taken of the proximity of the Cherry Hill Wood SSSI.

·         The site was opposite the Grade II listed Mill House Farm complex.

·         One view was that the development should be treated as a major development. However, Fownhope was a proposed ‘main village within the Core Strategy.  Using a baseline figure of 342 dwellings the proposed development represented less than 10% growth and less that half of the growth proposed within the Core Strategy and included 11 affordable homes.  The Principal Planning Officer had concluded that the development was not a major development.  He highlighted the comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) in bold type in paragraph 6.12 of the report.

·         There was some adverse impact on the landscape.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England objected.  However, the applicant had done a considerable amount to mitigate this impact.

·         The development had little impact on the road network.

·         Funding was available with the proposed Section 106 agreement to improve footpath access.

·         The statutory consultees did not object to the development.

·         Weight had to be given to the Council’s lack of a 5 yr housing land supply.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         It was observed that whether the development was to be treated as a major development was a matter of opinion not fact.  Various opinions were expressed on this point.  In particular reference was made to paragraph 6.10 of the report setting out the National Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Site for erection of up to 38 houses and apartments with highway access onto Elm Green Road; associated infrastructure and landscaping.

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

(Site for erection of up to 38 houses and apartments with highway access onto Elm Green Road; associated infrastructure and landscaping.)

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 E Overstall of Parish Council spoke on the Scheme.  Mrs A Hayter, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He was broadly supportive of the application, noting that the last housing needs study in 2009 had identified the need for 51 affordable homes in Ewyas Harold and that need remained to be met.  However, the application was for outline planning permission and he considered that a number of issues would need to be addressed at the reserved matters stage including: the provision of a continuous pathway alongside the B4347; provision for transportation needs in in a S106 agreement, detailed drainage proposals,; measures to ensure safety of bus service operation; and the importance of the developer conducting further consultation with the Parish Council and local community to deliver a site that had local support.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application Members supported the outline application noting that a number of matters would need to be resolved at the reserved matters stage.

The Development Manager commented that approval was being sought for the principle of development and there was scope for detailed discussion to take place on the reserved matters.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

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 outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary.

1.         A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

2.         A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters

4.         C01 Samples of external materials

5.         The development shall include no more than 38 dwellings and no dwelling shall be more than two storeys high.

            Reason: To define the terms of the permission and to conform to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, H13 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.         H03 Visibility splays

7.         H08 Access closure

8.         H11 Parking – estate development (more than one house)

9.         H17 Junction improvement/off site works

10.       H18 On site roads – submission of details

11.       H19 On site roads - phasing

12.       H20 Road completion

13.       H21 Wheel washing

14.       H27 Parking for site operatives

15.       H29 Covered and secure cycle parking provision

16.       H30 Travel plans

17.       The species mitigation and habitat enhancement measures shall be carried out in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Proposed outline consent for the erection of up to 38 dwellings.

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

(Proposed outline consent for the erection of up to 38 dwellings.)

The Development Manager 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 P Fountain of Lea Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of the Lea Action Group, spoke in objection.  Mr B Weatherley, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The application was a further one predicated on the absence of a five year housing land supply.  In Lea there were 218 properties.  The draft Core strategy envisaged 14% growth up to 2031(30 additional homes).  Permission had already been granted for 48 additional homes in Lea.  This further application was a step too far.

·         Welsh Water had expressed strong concerns regarding overland flooding downstream of the proposal.

·         The Transportation Manager had identified that the visibility splays for access needed to be addressed.

·         The land drainage manager had identified concerns about fluvial flood risk.

·         He highlighted the objections of Lea Parish Council and Ashton Ingham Parish Council set out in the report.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment, with too much development delivered too quickly which would have a significant detrimental effect.  The application should be refused on these grounds.

·         The two Parish Councils had highlighted a number of material considerations in their objections.

The Transportation Manager commented that revised drawings indicated that the visibility splays at the site’s access would be satisfactory.

The Development Manager commented that Welsh Water’s concerns related to a flood alleviation scheme.  Such a scheme would have to be provided before the occupation of any dwellings.  There were strong objections to proposed limits on growth in the core strategy and no limit could therefore be placed on development based on the number of houses for which permission had already been granted.  He emphasised that an application for 40 homes at Lea had been refused under delegated powers because the proposal had been unacceptable. In contrast, officers considered this application site to be suitable for development. S106 monies would address the pressure on provision of school places.  He could not provide the Committee with grounds for refusal.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his comments about the scale of development at Lea adding that he did not consider the proposed development to be sustainable.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication:  the development would represent overdevelopment of Lea.

Informative

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Proposed three bedroom dwelling.

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

(Proposed three bedroom dwelling.)

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 Morris, 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 P Sinclair-Knipe spoke on the application.

·         He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The personal family circumstances of the applicant provided a justification of the need for the development.

·         The demands of modern farming made it important for a farmer to be near his place of work.

·         The Committee had recently approved a similar application at Holme Lacy.

·         The Parish Council supported the application.  There were numerous letters in support of the application and none in objection to it.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         Most farmhouses would probably fail the sustainability test because by their nature they were often in isolated locations. 

·         There was a farming need for the development.

·         There was a social need for the development.

·         The applicant had failed to engage with the planning process and provide information required to support the application.

·         The application was contrary to policy.  Information to support approval having regard to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework had not been provided.

·         The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application had originally been for an agricultural dwelling but evidence to support the functional need had not been provided.  The application before the Committee was for an open market dwelling in the open countryside, hence the recommendation that the application be refused.

The Development Manager confirmed that an agricultural tie to the property could be appealed if imposed. 

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

The Solicitor sought and received confirmation that the grounds for approval were that there was a local social and agricultural need for the development and the development was sustainable.

RESOLVED: (on the Chairman’s casting vote) that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary on the grounds that there was a local social and agricultural need for the development and the development was sustainable.