Apologies were received from Councillor A Seldon.

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

Councillor D Summers substituted for Councillor A Seldon.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

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

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that the Committee had previously refused two applications for the same proposal.  The applicant, having lodged an appeal against the original refusal of the application, had now made a further resubmission of the same proposal.  Since the consideration of the original application the Council had adopted the Core Strategy and the resubmission of the application had to be considered in that new context.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Fountain, of Lea Parish Council spoke on the application.  He commented that the Parish Council did not support the application.  However, on the basis of officer advice that an appeal could not be successfully defended and the Council would incur costs, the Parish Council would reluctantly recommend approval subject to a number of conditions as set out in its response at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group, spoke in objection.  Mr M Askew, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Officers had advised him that the grounds advanced by the Committee for refusing the previous applications could not be defended at appeal.

·        The Parish Council reluctantly accepted the proposal, subject to conditions set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·        If the Parish Council’s requests were met this would help to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

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

·        The officer advice that the grounds for refusing the previous applications could not be defended at appeal was acknowledged.

·        There was support for the conditions advanced by the Parish Council.

·        It was regrettable that the Committee appeared to be unable to respond to the Parish Council’s clear reservations about the proposal and the concerns that it would represent overdevelopment.

·        Concern was expressed that the issue of ensuring financial support was in place for the ongoing maintenance of public open space in the case of this and other applications remained unresolved.

·        Tree planting as part of the landscaping proposals would be helpful in reducing flooding.

·        It would also be helpful if works provided for in an S106 agreement were undertaken prior to the completion of a development and its occupation.

·        This was another example of a situation where the wishes of the Parish Council were being overridden, in part because of the delay in advancing neighbourhood plans.  One year into the life of the Core Strategy the minimum housing allocations for a number of areas were already being exceeded.  The implication of this was that other areas would be able to accept less development than had been planned because the overall target for the Parish would have been met by overdevelopment elsewhere.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

Proposed detached passivhaus design, self-build, single-storey dwelling.

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

(Proposed detached passivhaus design, self-build, single-storey dwelling.)

The Senior 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 M Leigh, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Mikurkic, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        A large proportion of the village had expressed strong opinions about the application.  There were 9 letters in support with 15 letters of objection.  He therefore thought that the application warranted consideration by the Committee.

·        Whilst building was needed in rural areas, noting in particular the shortage of affordable housing, there was a question as to whether Aconbury was a suitable location for development given the lack of facilities.

·        He acknowledged that the Core Strategy did list Aconbury as a settlement.  Aconbury would have to accept some development even though there was a dislike of change.  However, there was concern that approval of the application would set a precedent for further development.

·        The access was difficult, some 50m down a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) on a steep gradient with modest visibility to the east.

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

·        The proposed development was modest, not obtrusive and would fit in with the local area.  It would provide accommodation for a family that lived and worked in the area. It was in accordance with policy RA2.

·        Regarding the access, anyone could use the BOAT.  It had also previously served as an access to a rifle club.  It would, however, be important for the Council to be mindful of the need to ensure that the BOAT was maintained to cope with the increased use.

·        The development was sustainable and as a Passivhaus development it had regard to environmental considerations including energy efficiency and low running costs.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He expressed the hope that the fact that the matter had been debated in public by the Committee would enable the various opinions within the community to be reconciled.

The Development Manager commented that whilst officers would not previously have supported development in this type of location, the Core Strategy identified a number of small settlements where applications of this type would now be supported.  The development represented organic growth.

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

1.         A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)     

2.         B02 - Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         F08 - No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation

4.         F14 - Removal of permitted development rights

5.         C01 - Samples of external materials

6.         G01 - Earthworks

7.         G02 - Retention of trees and hedgerows

8.         G11 - Landscaping scheme – implementation

9.         C14 -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

Proposed conversion of a dutch barn to provide a dwelling with annexed holiday accommodation.

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

(Proposed conversion of a dutch barn to provide a dwelling with annexed holiday accommodation.)

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 reported that one additional letter of support had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr W Mears, of Kimbolton Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr M Duggan, the applicant’s son, 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 application was a modest and well designed proposal.   It would contribute to the housing growth expected in the Parish in accordance with the Core Strategy and to tourism in accordance with policy E4.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.  There were 26 letters of support and no letters of objection.

·        There were no objections from the internal consultees with the exception of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings).  The local ward member cited a publication by the Leominster Historical Society which suggested, contrary to that officer’s view, that there was historic merit in the barn in question.  The proposed conversion of the barn was sympathetic.

·        The proposal was sustainable in accordance with policy RA2, being less than 10 minutes walk from the centre of the village. 

·        The applicant’s family had resided in Kimbolton for generations and was part of the local community.  In addition to providing accommodation for the family, the proposal would increase the security of the current farming enterprise.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were also letters of support from local residents.

·        The application met a local need and preserved the barn.

·        The officer’s recommendation that the application should be refused might be a strictly correct interpretation of the letter of the relevant policies but it was not pragmatic.

·        Some Members considered the proposal complied with policies RA2 and RA4. Others questioned whether the proposal was in fact a conversion of a building and whether it was therefore in accordance with policy RA5, and also expressed doubt as to whether it was intended to provide key workers’ accommodation and was therefore in accordance with policy RA4.

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

The legal representative confirmed the legal definition of a building and that the barn fell within that description.

The Development Manager commented that the proposal created structures outside the fabric of the building and was not a conversion.  It was not adjacent to the main settlement of Kimbolton and therefore did not comply with policy RA2.  Policies RA3 and RA5 were relevant.  No case had been made in the application to there being an agricultural need for the proposed dwelling. The proposal had to be considered as an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

Proposed new single storey dwelling and detached garage.

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

(Proposed new single storey dwelling and detached 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, Mrs J Whittall, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The purpose of the proposal was to allow the applicants’ son to move into the public house and run the business with the applicants moving to the new dwelling but continuing to assist with the management of the premises supporting the existing service provision.  The alternative was for the applicants to sell the business.

·        The public house was a focal point for residents and local community groups.   There was local support for the application and concern about any threat to the viability of the public house. 

·        He considered the proposal did comply with policy RA2 which listed Pencombe as a settlement.  This could be considered to encompass Little Cowarne which was not specifically mentioned.

·        The site was not in open countryside but was close to the church and formed the centre of the settlement.

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

·        Little Cowarne was not listed as a settlement under policy RA2 and the application was therefore not in accordance with that policy.

·        The proposal benefitted the family and the local community.

·        Whilst not in accordance with policy it could be argued that the business was fulfilling an essential need for the public.

·        It was suggested that a condition should be imposed tying the proposed new dwelling to the public house. 

The Development Manager commented that the applicants had made a case for the application.  Policy RA2 did not apply.  However, it could be argued that policies RA3 and RA4 could be considered relevant.  However, there was already sufficient living accommodation at the premises for a live-in manager meaning policy RA3 was not applicable.  Policy RA4 provided approval for such proposals might be considered acceptable where the proposal sustained an existing functional need.  A condition could be imposed tying the proposed new dwelling to the public house. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that there was justification for the development.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to a condition tying the proposed new dwelling to the public house and any other conditions considered necessary.

Variation of condition 7 of planning permission cw2002/3803/f and condition 1 of planning permission cw2003/3853/f.

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

(Variation of condition 7 of planning permission cw2002/3803/f and condition 1 of planning permission cw2003/3853/f)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Jones, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr A Salariya, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He commented that the local residents already had to endure considerable late night noise emanating from the premises car park. The proposal would cause additional detriment to the residential amenity of the area.  He did not believe that the conditions being proposed to mitigate the nuisance would be enforceable.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application there was support for the views of the local ward member that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjoining residential property.

The Development Manager commented that Environmental Health and Licensing Officers had assessed the noise level and did not consider that it was a statutory nuisance.  It was therefore a planning matter.  However, residential amenity was a slightly lesser test and a material consideration.  He considered that the proposed conditions could be enforced provided the right mechanisms were put in place.  A 12ft wall was already in place and it would be inappropriate and detrimental to the neighbouring properties to increase the height with a further attenuation fence.

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

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused and that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication, based on the Committee’s view that the application should be refused because it was detrimental to the residential amenity of adjoining residential property.

Date of next site inspection – 23 February 2016

Date of next meeting – 24 February 2016