Apologies were received from Councillors JA Hyde and A Seldon.

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

Councillor SM Michael substituted for Councillor A Seldon and Councillor J Stone for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

Agenda item 7: 151145 Field adjoining A4112 and Chestnut Avenue, Kimbolton.

Councillor J Stone declared a non-pecuniary interest as Chairman of Kimbolton Primary School Governors..

(With regard to item 8: 151641 – Land to rear of Bramley House and Orchard House of Kings Acre Road, Swainshill, Hereford, Councillor AJW Powers informed the Committee that he was a member of Breinton Parish Council.)

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2015.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November, 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed residential development of up to 21 dwellings along with new access and associated works.

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 21 dwellings along with new access and associated works.)

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 W Mears of Kimbolton Parish Council commented that whilst the Parish Council had no objection in principle it did have a number of concerns about the Scheme.  Mr J Robinson, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs S Churchward, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The community consultation referred to at paragraph 1.5 of the report had been organised by the applicants not the Parish Council.  It had been well attended.

·        In the context of Kimbolton the development was large and potentially significant.

·        The Neighbourhood Plan was at an early stage so residents, who were not opposed in principle to development, had not yet had the opportunity to express their views on possible development sites.

The following points were in favour of the development:

·        The proposal for up to 21 houses, 40% of which would be affordable, would provide an opportunity for young people and families to live in the village and contribute to the village’s sustainability.

·        The Primary School was good and the head teacher welcomed the development.

·        The development was of a low density.

Less welcome aspects included:

·        Whilst the Parish Council was not opposed in principle to development it had outlined a number of concerns in its response at page 31 of the agenda papers.  These included sewage management; there was already a pollution problem in the absence of a public sewer.

·        The comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) who had registered an objection included the statement that: “The proposed site extends in a north-westerly direction beyond the existing north western housing boundaries.  This creates housing creep into the open countryside which makes the proposed site out of scale with the existing village pattern.”  The Conservation Manager went on to suggest that a development of 11 houses would be more acceptable.

·        There were concerns about the access to the site and the additional traffic.  Whilst there was a 30mph speed limit on that part of the A4112 the road was busy and traffic fast at certain times of the day.  Traffic calming measures were needed.

·        Kimbolton Primary School needed its own hall so pupils did not have to walk to the village hall.

·        Footpath and cycleway provision needed to be improved.

·        The section 106 agreement needed to be revisited.

In conclusion he observed that paragraph 6.29 of the report concluded that the adverse impacts did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the Scheme.  It was a finely balanced application.

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

·        It was welcome that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Proposed erection of nine dwellings.

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 21 dwellings along with new access and associated works.)

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 Morawiecka of Breinton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Jolly, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor WLS Bowen had fulfilled the role of local ward member for this application on behalf of Councillor RI Matthews.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Bowen spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He noted that it had been advised that the route corridor for the western relief road did not impact upon the site and that it was not therefore a relevant matter.

·        The site had once been an old orchard and if the application were approved he supported the maintenance of an area as traditional orchard.

·        The access from the Kings Acre Road was good, but the road from the access to the site needed to be adopted.

·        The site had good access to transport links and was sustainable.

·        The Parish Council considered that the parish needed smaller housing units than the application proposed. 

·        The development would have no affordable housing.

·        The quality of design would be important.

·        The turning head of the access road should be reduced in size.

·        It was important that sewerage and water supply issues were addressed.

·        The S106 agreement would need to incorporate provision for transport, public open space and a play area.

·        He requested that the Parish Council should be fully consulted on any reserved matters application.

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

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had suggested that a condition should be imposed requiring a compensatory commitment to re-establish areas of lost trees and manage an area in association with the development as traditional orchard.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed where it was proposed that area should be.  She noted that there had been no trees on the development site since 1999.  It was proposed to address the points made by the Conservation Manager (Ecology) about enhancing the area through the S106 agreement.

·        The concept of the traditional orchard was questioned.  Such orchards were not long lived, were not commercially viable and could only be maintained as a community project.

·        The proposal was sustainable.

·        The provision of private garden space was welcome.

·        The absence of any affordable housing as part of the development was regrettable.

·        The development could not be considered to be in open countryside.  It was in the middle of an area that had already been developed and could be viewed as organic growth.

·        In considering the size of the turning head of the access road, it was important to ensure that regard was had to recycling and waste management collection requirements.

·        Local demand showed a need for affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Proposed 10 no dwellings with garages.

The application was deferred for further discussion with the applicant.

(Proposed10 no dwellings with garages.)

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 C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Jessop, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She noted the link to application 150053 on a directly adjoining site that was the subject of the next item on the agenda.

·        Ginhall lane off which the access was proposed was very narrow with a 60mph speed limit.

·        In a recent accident a car had ended up upside down right against the house at the junction.

·        The site was higher than the lane so there would be high banks on either side close to the existing cottages.  The gradient lent itself to water run-off and pooling.

·        Traffic from that location fed into Baron’s Cross and The Bargates.  This was currently a very busy and heavily congested stretch of road.  Ginhall lane itself was used as a rat run to avoid the congestion.  

·        A development of 1,000 homes was planned on the opposite side of the road.

·        The site was in an area identified as a strategic green corridor.  It formed part of a green approach to the Town where it was hoped that ecology would develop.

·        An assurance had previously been given that there would be no access from the Buckfield Estate onto Ginhall Lane, which was a country lane with soft verges used for walking and unsuitable for additional traffic.

·        If the application were approved, in terms of S106 contributions the most important requirement was to provide a pedestrian crossing for the Baron’s Cross estate.

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

·        The Transportation Manager confirmed the accident history of Ginhall Lane up until 2013.

·        The access was not acceptable.  It was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred to permit discussions on how to create a safer access through the adjoining site.

RESOLVED:   That consideration of the application be deferred to permit consideration of a safer access.

Proposed 25 dwellings with garages and car spaces.

The application was deferred for further discussion with the applicant.

(Proposed cottage and garage.)

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 C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Jessop, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She noted the link with the adjoining application 150052, the subject of the previous agenda item.  Traffic from the proposed development would have to use congested roads adding to the existing problem.  Planning permission had already been granted for a development of 420 houses on the opposite side of the road.

It was proposed in debate that consideration should be deferred to consider the development of a single access to the two sites (application 150052 and 150053).

RESOLVED:   That consideration of the application be deferred to permit consideration of a single access to the sites the subject of applications 150052 and 150053.