Apologies were received from Councillors TM James, JLV Kenyon and EJ Swinglehurst.

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

Councillor PA Andrews substituted for Councillor TM James, Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor EJ Swinglehurst and Councillor D Summers for Councillor JLV Kenyon.

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

Agenda item 7: 151325 - Land Adjacent To Lustonbury, Luston, Leominster, Herefordshire

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew some of the objectors.

Mr S Withers, Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest because the applicant knew his father and he was therefore through that association aware of the applicant.

Agenda item 9: 160202 - Proposed two storey side extension at 48 Mount Crescent, Hereford,

Mr S Withers, Development Manager, declared a pecuniary interest as the applicant and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 February, 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

A Member sought clarification on the implications of the Inspector’s decision on the appeal against refusal of planning permission for application 142215: land off Rosemary Lane, Leintwardine, Herefordshire.

The Development Manager commented that a briefing note had been issued to all Members and a seminar was being arranged at which the implications could be explored.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Proposed erection of three dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure.

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

(Proposed erection of three dwellings with associated landscaping and infrastructure at land.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

(The committee update received following the publication of the agenda simply stated that “two photographs had been received from the detached property to north of site, providing southward views towards the application site and commenting on the lack of screening”.  The officer comments in response were: “This relationship was referred to at the site inspection. It is considered that there is sufficient distance between this property and unit 3 so as to safeguard residential amenity”.)

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Meldrum, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr J Hicks, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was of great historical significance and importance and should be preserved.

·        The proposal would be detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity of the application site.

·        Previous applications for planning permission to develop the site for housing had been refused and an appeal against refusal had been lost.

·        The current application was an improvement on previous proposals.  However he considered the design was still unsatisfactory for the setting.  The provision of one high quality dwelling would represent a better proposal.

·        The proposal that living accommodation would be on the first floor could be intrusive to neighbouring properties.

·        The site was a dell, attracting water and wildlife.

·        The entrance to the site was narrow and increased traffic would damage neighbouring properties.

·        The Parish Council opposed the proposal and in a parish poll 80% had opposed development of Lustonbury.

·        There were 15 houses for sale in the area so it did not appear that there was a need for additional houses.

·        The economic benefit of the development identified at paragraph 6.14 of the report would be modest and short-lived.

·        Pedestrian access to the village centre would be by the road.  This was not satisfactory.

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

·        The applicant’s agent had suggested that the proposed design overcame the objections to previous applications.  However, a number of Members considered that this was not the case.  A contrary view was expressed by other Members that the design was satisfactory.

·        The proposal met most of the criteria in policy RA2, although it could be questioned whether there was a local demand for housing.

·        The implication of the Inspector’s recent decision on the Council’s five year housing land supply was noted.  However, the position on the housing land supply was fluid and it was arguable that the application failed the test in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        The site had considerable historic value and importance. 

·        The listed buildings and their setting should be preserved.

·        The site had conservation value with a range of species present on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Proposed change of use to 2 no. Romany gypsy pitches and associated works including 2 no. Static caravans, 2 no. Day rooms, 2 nos. Touring caravans and associated works.

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

(Proposed change of use to 2 no. Romany gypsy pitches and associated works including 2 no. Static caravans, 2 no. Day rooms, 2 nos. Touring caravans and associated works.)

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

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Olver, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr S Rushton, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor WLS Bowen spoke on the application on behalf of the local ward member, Councillor PE Crockett, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The Needs Assessment identified a need for additional pitches to be provided.  However, it was important that these were in safe and sustainable locations. 

·        There were a number of concerns about the proposal before the Committee:

·      Highway safety: the Transportation Manager had expressed concerns about visibility and the access in his response.

·      Flooding – although in flood zone 1 there was photographic evidence showing flooding on the site.

·      Waste water – the condition of the septic tank was a concern

·      Sustainability – the site was in a rural location.  There was no footpath.

·      Planning history – An application on the site had been refused in 2012.

·      Local opinion – the Parish Council and local residents objected to the proposal.

·        If the application were to be approved he requested that there should be conditions to ensure sewage disposal arrangements were satisfactory before development commenced, and that use of the eastern access should be prohibited.

·        He noted that the lack of pitches could give weight to approving the application.  However, only 2 pitches would be provided.

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

·        The eastern entrance should be closed because of the poor visibility, and enhanced landscaping provided to close it off.  Whilst a single central entrance and exit would be the preferred option a western entrance and exit would be acceptable. It was noted that the applicant had indicated that they would be willing to accept the sole use of the western access.

·        There were letters of support as well as letters of objection.

·        The site was a brownfield site.

·        There was a shortage of pitches.

·        The site was a small site and would not have a greater impact than the previous use.

·        The drainage needed to be addressed.

·        Paragraphs 6.5-6.7 of the report set out criteria to be considered in determining such applications and factors to which weight should be attached.  The proposal fulfilled the criteria and factors to which weight should be attached were in its favour. 

·        A view was expressed that the site did not comply with policy H4.

·        In response to questions the Acting Principal Planning Officer commented as follows;

·      She confirmed that the applicant was a local person, however Government guidance stated that this was not a material consideration.

·      It was typical for a day room to be provided as part of such a development.

·      A condition restricted occupancy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Proposed two storey side extension.

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

(Proposed two storey side extension.)

(Mr S Withers, Development Manager, declared a pecuniary interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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 (Drawing JS/161/15/2)

3            I16 - Restriction of hours during construction

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, 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.

Date of next site inspection – 5 April 2016

Date of next meeting – 6 April 2016