Apologies were received from Councillors RI Matthews 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 *ACR Chappell attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

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

Agenda item 7 – 142175 – Land off Pencombe Lane, Bromyard

Councillor JG Lester declared a non-pecuniary interest as Chairman of Queen Elizabeth Humanities College Chair of Governors.

Agenda item 9 143780 Former Tan Brook Centre, Rockfield Road, Hereford

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

Agenda item 10 141651 Land to the Rear of the Full Pitcher, New Street, Ledbury

Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Director of Herefordshire Football Association.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 11 February 2015.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings held on 11 February 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

The Development Manager reported that the public examination of the Core Strategy had finished.  A further consultation would now take place on outstanding matters including the five year housing land supply.

He also drew the Committee’s attention to the successful appeal against the refusal, contrary to officer recommendation, of planning application 140351 Quarry Field Cotts lane Lugwardine.  He noted that this was one of several appeals in that locality and the Committee would also be asked imminently to consider similar applications in the County.

A Member expressed his surprise at the Inspector’s decision given the Committee’s concerns about the safety issues associated with that development.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Site for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space and landscaping.

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

(Site for up to 120 dwellings with associated open space 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, Mr R Page, of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council and  Mr R Wilkins of Avenbury Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. Mr T Ayres, of RPS Planning and Development, spoke in objection.  Mr L Lane, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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 Lester commented on a number of issues including:

·         If considered in isolation, the site had arguments both in favour of it and against it.  However, the site could not be considered in isolation given the proposed strategic housing allocation being promoted as part of the Core Strategy on land opposite the application site known as Hardwick Bank.

·         The Town Council in its submissions as part of the examination in public of the Core Strategy had indicated that it was in favour of housing development.  Bromyard needed growth.

·         He commended the community benefits offered in the s106 agreement. 

·         The Pencombe Lane site would provide only a proportion of the housing Bromyard needed.   The Hardwick Bank site could accommodate more houses and meet the whole need.  It could be argued that the Pencombe Lane application was premature and prejudiced the development of the Hardwick Bank site.  In particular there was concern, as reflected in a letter from RPS Planning and Development, about the provision of a separate access to the Pencombe Lane site jeopardising development of the Hardwick Bank site.

·         He acknowledged the officers’ comments in the report on the question of prematurity.  However, the Hardwick Bank site could accommodate more than the proposed strategic allocation of 250 dwellings meaning that there would not be a housing shortfall to meet as the report suggested.  The Town Council supported a larger development at Hardwick Bank because this would facilitate the creation of a link road between the A44 and the Tenbury Road.

·         The Planning Inspector was soon to reach a decision on the Core Strategy.  It was therefore premature to determine the application now given the implications if the Town Council’s submission to the Inspector were to be supported.

·         Because the Pencombe Lane site was not designated in any way this did not mean that weight could not be given to the site’s prominence and the impact of the proposed development on the landscape.  The Hardwick Bank site did not have the same impact.

Councillor A Seldon commented on a number of issues including:

·         He criticised the current operation of the planning system expressing concern that the Town Council had felt compelled to secure independent legal advice in order to challenge the Council’s Planning Department. 

·         The Town Council had opposed development south of the A44  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

Proposed erection of 10 no. dwellings and associated hard and soft landscaping.

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

(Proposed erection of 10 no. dwellings and associated hard and soft 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, Mr F Bowen, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Ms K La Tzar and Mr J Hurlstone spoke in support on the applicant’s behalf.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors MD Lloyd-Hayes and JLV Kenyon, two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Lloyd-Hayes spoke in support of the application commenting on a number of issues including:

·         There was a clear need for affordable housing in the area and the proposal to construct the homes to level four of the Code for Sustainable Homes was welcome. 

·         The City Council supported the application.

·         There was sufficient public open space in the area and the development represented a better use of the land.

·         The dwellings were sited 12m from the boundary with the closest neighbouring property which was more generous than in many other developments.

Councillor Kenyon acknowledged the impact of the development on the property closest to it.  However, the applicant had worked closely with the local ward Councillors and he supported the development as the best solution that could be achieved.

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

·         It was accepted that the development met a need for affordable housing.  The scheme was well planned and there had been full consultation.  The impact on neighbouring properties was unfortunate but was not a ground for refusal in this case.

·         It was requested that consideration be given to managing car parking in the location.

·         The replacement of trees to be lost during the development was welcome but care needed to be taken to ensure that they did not cause any detriment to properties.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate but had no additional comments.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.           A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2            B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.           B07 Section 106 Agreement to secure affordable housing tenure

4.           C01 Samples of external materials

5.            The recommendations set out in Section 5 of the ecologist’s report from James Johnston dated October 2014 should be followed in relation to species mitigation and habitat enhancement.  Prior to commencement of the main site development, a reptile survey should be conducted to ascertain presence or absence of slow worm and the results submitted in a report the findings of which should be endorsed by the local authority.

   An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

   Reasons:

   To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new garden and estate machinery showroom, offices, workshop and storage building, new access parking and alterations to Rockfield Road Junction.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation, with an additional condition.

(Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new garden and estate machinery showroom, offices, workshop and storage building, new access parking and alterations.)

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 R Pryce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He supported the application noting that it would provide a site for the relocation of a viable business displaced by the Hereford Link Road.  The proposal also included works that would improve the junction of Aylestone Hill and Rockfield Road.

The Committee indicated support for the development.

The Development Manager confirmed that the junction improvements and subsequent monitoring had been taken into account as part of the Hereford Link Road Scheme.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate but had no additional comment.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)      

2.         B03 Development in accordance with amended plans

3.         C01 Details of external materials

4.         H13 Access, turning and parking area

5.         H17 Junction improvement (Aylestone Hill & Rockfield Road) and off-site works

6.         H29 Covered and secure cycle parking provision

7.         I51 Details of slab levels

8.         I16 Restriction of hours during construction

9.         L01 Foul/surface water drainage

10.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

11.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

12.       L04 Comprehensive and integrated drainage of site

13.       G09 Details of boundary treatments

14.       G10 Landscaping scheme

15.       G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

Informatives:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         HN01 Mud on highway

3.         HN05 Works within the highway

4.         HN07 Section 278 agreement

5.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

Site for residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated means of access and car parking for The Full Pitcher Public House.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to further consultation as referred to in the schedule of updates..

(Site for residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated means of access and car parking for The Full Pitcher Public House.)

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 noted that the Committee had deferred determination of the application at its meeting on 11 February 2015. Further information was contained in the updated report and in the update sheet in response to the Committee’s request. In particular he noted that it was now recommended that further consultation be undertaken on highway aspects of the proposal with officers authorised to approve planning permission subject to no new material planning considerations being raised in the consultation exercise.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Francis, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr I Smethurst, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Yeoman, Chairman of Ledbury Cricket Club spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors EPJ Harvey,  and TL Widdows,  two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Harvey commented on a number of issues including:

The application appeared to have been brought back before the Committee rather hastily and given more time and thought a better application could have been submitted for consideration.

Ledbury Cricket Club had secured a replacement site which was welcome.

The provision of 40 affordable homes was welcome.

Whilst not defined as public open space the site was open space, crossed by a public footpath and much used by residents

She had discussed the situation with Sport England who had indicated that the cricket Club site at Orlham Lane was not a suitable replacement for the sports facilities currently provided at the Full Pitcher site because it was not suitable for adult football.  Representatives of Ledbury Rugby Club had also indicated that the football pitches on its Ross Road site were not suitable for adult football.

In relation to adult football pitch provision, officers had commented that there was “a surplus of senior pitches in the Ledbury Area (not necessarily the town)”.  However, the Ledbury locality as opposed to the town included Colwall and Bosbury.  There was not an overprovision of senior pitches within the Town itself.

The provision of housing on the current green space was a concern and opposed by the Town Council.

There were still outstanding issues about the access to be resolved. She requested that the application should be reconsidered by the Committee and not determined by officers under delegated powers.

Councillor Widdows expressed his concerns about the access noting its proximity to the roundabout and the absence of consultation on the revised proposals.

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

The site was not public open space and was suitable for housing development. 

Suitable alternative facilities had been found for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.