None.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

None.

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

Agenda item 8: 143787 – Land at Queenswood, Cradley, Herefordshire

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the Council’s representatives on the Malvern Hills AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Agenda item 9: 150526 – Burlton Court Farm, Burlton Court Road, Burghill

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew objectors to the application.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2015.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Proposed construction of three self build family homes, alterations to existing access and associated landscaping and drainage.  

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

(Proposed construction of three self-build family homes, alterations to existing access and associated landscaping and drainage.)

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

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor WC Skelton, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        An application for five houses on the site had recently been refused.  The new proposal for three houses proposed a different access to that originally proposed.

·        Existing permissions and applications provided for 20 dwellings in Winforton.

·        Given the extent of development within Winforton there was a need for a crossing to be provided across the A438 and for play facilities in the village.  However, the scale of the proposed application was insufficient to require S106 contributions and there would be no community benefit.

·        He considered details of the scheme could be addressed satisfactorily.  On balance given the need to address the housing shortfall in the County he supported the application.

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

·        The Development Manager confirmed that land that was the subject of the current application for three houses was not in the flood plain.  Part of the area covered by the previous application for five houses, which had been refused, had been in flood zone 2.

·        The Development Manager advised that no conditions could be imposed to guarantee that, if approval were granted for the proposed new access to the site off the A438, applications for further development using that access would be refused.  However, if the Neighbourhood Plan, which was well advanced at Regulation 16 stage was approved this would provide additional power to control development.  In proposing approval for the application a Member requested that an informative should be added indicating the expectation that the access would solely be used by the development which was the subject of the application.

·        A number of Members expressed their support for self build schemes, noting that there was a lack of such schemes within the County.  The Development Manager commented that the practicalities of using enforcement to ensure self-build schemes proceeded as such, rather than being erected, for example, by a building company, were yet to be resolved nationally.  He did not consider an enforceable condition requiring self-build could be imposed.  It was noted in relation to self-build development generally in the County that a working group was looking at the potential for such schemes and it was likely that the Council would identify land to promote this initiative.  The application itself did not mention self-build and needed to be considered as a straightforward application for three dwellings.

·        A Member suggested that a sign displayed by a nearby business might impair visibility from the proposed access and requested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Proposed construction of three no. two storey dwellings with associated garages and landscaping.

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

(Proposed construction of three no. two storey dwellings with associated garages and landscaping.)

(Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest.)

The Acting Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PM Morgan, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        Whilst the proposed development was small, there was considerable local opposition to it.  The proposal was contrary to policy, outside the settlement boundary, and within the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a conservation area.

·        The Parish Council was developing a Neighbourhood Plan.  She noted that a development of 60 houses had recently been approved in Cradley.  It was considered that development of windfall sites would enable it to meet its housing target.  Any further development in Cradley should be organic growth.

·        The officer’s report concluded that the landscaping proposed delineated the transition from/to open countryside.  She requested that careful consideration be given to the appropriateness of proposed conditions governing this aspect.

·        The development would have an adverse impact on a listed building.

·        The design was poor and inappropriate.

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

·        A Member noted that the development was opposite a post-war housing estate and the impact of the proposal on the adjacent listed building was therefore limited.  A contrary view was expressed that there would be an adverse impact on a listed building.

·        The Parish Council was opposed to the proposal.

·        Regard had to be had to the fact the development was within the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·        The proposal was contrary to policy and outside the settlement boundary.

·        The design was inadequate and out of character.

·        There was a concern that the application represented ribbon development.

·        The Development Manger commented that a number of Parish Councils had applied for designation as a Neighbourhood Area but had not progressed plans.  The Cradley Neighbourhood Plan had not reached Regulation 14 Stage.  No weight could be given to it.

The Development Manager commented that the officers’ view was that the landscape provided a defendable boundary against further development beyond the proposed site.   Conditions required details to be provided on this point.  Officers’ view was that the design was not inappropriate and, whilst within the AONB, the developer would be required to use natural materials of good quality complementary to the AONB.

He added that the presence of a post-war Council housing estate opposite the site undermined an argument that the site had an adverse impact on the setting of a listed building.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She informed the Committee that a thorough landscape survey had been undertaken to inform the Neighbourhood Plan and progress was being made on the Plan.  The Committee had identified the key concerns about the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Proposed agricultural machinery and implement storage building.  

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

(Proposed agricultural machinery and implement storage building.)

(Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest.)

The 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 H Philpotts, Clerk to Burghill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Ager, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Pryce, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PE Crockett, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would increase the size of the industrial site significantly.

·        It would have an adverse impact on a greenfield site and on local residents.

·        There was concern that it would exacerbate an existing flooding issue.

·        She shared the Parish Council’s concerns about noise and light pollution.

·        There were alternative sites at the Cattle Market and Three Elms trading estate that would offer a better, safer access for slow moving heavy traffic.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal and 29 letters of objection had also been received.

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

·        The Development Manager corrected paragraph 1.2 of the report, confirming that the building was larger than reported measuring 56m in length and with a depth of 12m.  The highest point was 6.6m with an eaves height of 5.15m as stated in the report.

·        Concern was expressed that the proposal appeared to seek to develop a greenfield site to provide additional space on an existing brownfield site. 

·        The proposal was for a large building and it would have an adverse impact on local residents.

·        There were suitable alternative sites at the Cattle Market and the Three Elms trading estate.

·        Paragraph 6.9 of the report seemed to suggest that the proposed development on a greenfield site would be constructed to a lower standard than would be required on either the Three Elms trading estate or Cattle Market sites.

·        The planning history of the site and its piecemeal development encouraged reservations about the design of the current proposal.

·        The economic argument advanced in support of the development was not sufficiently strong.

The Development Manager commented that the National Planning Policy Framework  (NPPF) and saved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies E11 and E15 supported developments of the type proposed, provided buildings were of good design.  If permission were approved he requested that authority be delegated to officers after consultation with the Chairman and the local ward member to finalise details including drainage. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her opposition to the proposal.

The following reasons were advanced for refusing permission:  the development was in the open countryside, was contrary to the NPPF and UDP policies E11 and E15 and there were more suitable alternative sites.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Proposed construction of a 3 bed single storey passivhaus, associated landscaping, bio-diversity enhancement, access and flood prevention for adjacent listed buildings.

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

(Proposed construction of a 3 bed single storey passivhaus, associated landscaping, bio-diversity enhancement, access and flood prevention for adjacent listed buildings.)

The Acting Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that the first five bullet points of paragraph 5.3 related to a different application and should be discounted. He added that the landscape officer had now indicated her support for the application.

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

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PM Morgan, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        There were some letters of objection but many more letters of support for the application.

·        The conservation manager had expressed reservations.  However, in her view the proposal would, if anything, have a positive impact.  She considered that the proposal did meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and should be supported.

·        She highlighted the last three bullet points of paragraph 5.2 of the report which praised the application and suggested that the qualities of the application should be shared with local builders to help to reduce the impact of developments.

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

·        The scheme was exemplary, sensitive to its context and made a positive contribution to the landscape.

·        It was disappointing that the Parish Council and the campaign to protect rural England objected to the proposal.

·        Most Members were content that the proposal met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  A contrary view was expressed that the design was not truly outstanding or innovative and therefore did not meet those requirements.  Some reservations were also expressed about permitting development in the open countryside outside the settlement boundary.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her view that the scheme fitted into the landscape.

The Development Manager commented that the nature of the design was that some people would like it and others would not.  However, he considered that the proposal would integrate into the landscape.  The development was in the open countryside and outside the settlement boundary.  However, he considered that the design was exceptional and fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

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

1.         C01 – Time limit for commencement         

2.         C07 – Development in accordance with approved plans and details

3.         C13 – Samples of external materials

4.         Details of windows, doors and other external details and finishes

5.         C61 – No balconies/roof amenity area

6.         C65 – Removal of permitted development rights

7.         C67 – No new windows in specified elevation

8.         C97 – Landscaping scheme – implementation

9.         C98  – Hedgerow, tree and landscape planting

10.       CA1 – Landscape management plan

11.       CC2 – External lighting

12.       The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Proposed detached single storey bungalow with storage/garaging uxnder.    

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

(Proposed detached single storey bungalow with storage/garaging under.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He reported that the Drainage Manager had now submitted comments and had no objection in principle to the development subject to being satisfied with the detail of the drainage proposals prior to the commencement of development.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Davies, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had lived in Much Birch for 50 years.  The proposal was being made to enable the applicant to cope with his wife’s deteriorating health.

·        The application had a number of letters in support of it and was supported by the Parish Council.

·        Contrary to the officer report he considered that there was sufficient access to local amenities.

·        Considerable consideration had been given to the design which was eco-friendly.

·        Approving the application would make a real beneficial difference to the lives of two local people.

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

·        The applicant was not seeking to profit from the application but was seeking to plan ahead to meet his wife’s medical needs and there was no alternative location.

·        The local ward member had indicated that there was access to local services and the development was sustainable. 

·        The applicant had made an effort to make the proposed property energy efficient.  This was also relevant to its affordability.

·        The application had no adverse impact on the surrounding area.

·        The local community supported the application.

The Senior Planning Officer commented that planning permission was rarely granted on the grounds of personal circumstances and this was particularly the case where a new dwelling was proposed.

The Development Manager commented that the development was in the open countryside, was not of exceptional design, although it did promote energy saving, and was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the Unitary Development Plan and the emerging Core Strategy.

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

RESOLVED:   That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to conditions considered necessary by officers, on the grounds that the development was sustainable.

Proposed 3 no. new dwellings.

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

(Proposed 3 no new dwellings.)

The Acting Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Members considered that the application represented infill development in keeping with the character of the settlement.

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

1.         C01 – Time limit

2.         C07 – Development in accordance with approved plans

3.         C13 – Samples of external materials

4.         C26 – Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

5.         C27 – Details of external joinery finishes

6.         C58 – Domestic use only of garage and no conversion to accommodation

7.         C65 – Removal of permitted development rights

8.         C95 – Boundary treatments ion accordance with approved plans

9.         C97 – Landscaping scheme - implementation

10.       C98 – Hedgerow planting

11.       CAL – Access, turning area and parking

12.       CAC – Visibility over frontage

13.       CBO – Scheme of surface water drainage

14.       CBQ – No surface water to public sewer

Informative

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. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework

Date of next site inspection – 4 August 2015

Date of next meeting – 5 August 2015