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 subsituted 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: 152578 - Proposed New Dwelling At Land At Betty Howells, North West Of Daren Farm, Llanveynoe

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March, 2016.

It was noted that draft minute no 161 had been amended to reflect that the interest recorded as having been declared in relation to agenda item 8 had in fact been declared in relation to agenda item 9.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2016, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

The Development Manager reported that an appeal decision had been received on Monday 4 April approving a housing development to the South of Ledbury for 321 houses.  The Planning Service was reviewing the decision and information on the matter would be included in the report to the next meeting on appeals.

A Member sought clarification on a number of points about the implications of the two recent appeal decisions at Ledbury and Leintwardine where the Inspectors had determined that the Council did not have the required five year housing land supply.  The Chairman reiterated that a seminar was being arranged at which the issues could be discussed.

 The Planning Committee noted the report.

Proposed new dwelling.

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

(Proposed new dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He added that 4 further letters of support had been received.  He also corrected paragraph 6.7 of the report noting that it should have referred to criterion 5 of policy RA3 rather than criterion 4.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Jones of Longtown Group Parish Council spoke in support of the application.  Mr C Morel the applicant also spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The Applicant’s family had owned the land on which the site was located for three generations and there were remains of a stone cottage that had been occupied until the 1980s.

·        He remarked upon the applicants work in establishing a local business and in running the post office and local shop making them a crucial local service provider.

·        The proposed dwelling would be sustainably constructed, virtually to Passivhaus standards.

·        There had been no objections from consultees.

·        The Parish Council supported the application.  There were letters of support from local residents and no objections.

·        The application fulfilled the requirements of policy SS2.  It met a housing need, supported the local economy and was responsive to the needs of the community.

·        Paragraph 6.7 of the report stated that criterion 5 of Policy RA 3 allowed rural exception housing in accordance with policy H2.  Paragraph 6.8 of the report stated that proposals for affordable housing schemes in rural areas may be permitted on land which would not normally be released for housing where three criteria were met.  Paragraph 6.1.5 of the report praised the proposed development.  The only criterion of policy H2 that the report considered was not partially met was that the development must offer reasonable access to a range of services. 

·        The question of what constituted reasonable access needed to be considered in the local context and the distances from the proposed dwelling to services were reasonable in that context.

·        The proposal was the only way the applicant could acquire a home in the locality because he owned the land and had the skills to construct the dwelling.

·        The proposal warranted approval as a rural exception site.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal, there was local support and no objections.

·        There was support for the views of the local ward member that the distance to local services was reasonable in the local context.

·        The design of the proposed dwelling was good. 

·        There had been a dwelling on the site.

·        Paragraph 6.9 of the report noted that there was a local need for affordable housing and that, subject to an appropriately worded Section 106 agreement, the development would assist in meeting that need in perpetuity.  Members expressed support for such an agreement if the application were approved.

·        A request was also made that the woodland surrounding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Proposed erection of 4 no. Dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.

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

(Proposed erection of 4 no. dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Brown of Dilwyn Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms L Pledge a local resident spoke in objection.  Ms R Powell the applicant and Mr J Hicks the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         There was a need for development in Dilwyn.  However, the design was not in keeping with the conservation area.

·         He supported the grounds of objection raised by Dilwyn Parish Council.  Insufficient weight had been given to the Parish Council’s views and the significant number of letters of objection.

·         He expressed regret that a site visit had not been undertaken.

·         The Transport Manager had originally objected to the application stating that a proper assessment of the usage of the lane was required.  Following consideration of additional information, including a traffic assessment provided by the applicant, the Transport Manager had submitted a further response that did not object. The local ward member questioned whether the traffic assessment undertaken by the applicant had been adequate. He knew that there had been accidents on the access road even if these had not been officially recorded.  He also expressed concern about the use of a traffic assessment produced by residents in confidence.

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

·         The proposal was a modest development that would provide homes, with gardens, for young families.

·         There had been some suggestion that, contrary to paragraph 2.3 of the report, the Parish Council was developing a neighbourhood development plan.  The Development Manager confirmed that no plan had been registered with the neighbourhood development team.

·         There were insufficient grounds to support a refusal of the application.

·         Although the view was that highway safety was not a ground for refusal in this case, it would be important to ensure that the detailed conditions relating to highway safety were implemented.

·         Whilst it was clear that discussions had taken place leading to amendments to the original application it was unfortunate that there still appeared to be such local dissatisfaction with the proposal. It was to be hoped that there might still be room for some negotiation.  This possibly even merited deferral of the consideration of the application.

·         A Member sought clarification on the effect the absence of a 5 year housing land supply had on the application of housing related policies in the Core Strategy.  He also emphasised the importance of the Committee being given definitive advice on this matter and on the annual monitoring report. 

·         Clarification was also sought over a concern expressed by the local ward member and objectors about the use of a traffic assessment produced by residents.

The Development Manager commented that a Court of Appeal decision meant that in the absence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Date of next site inspection – Monday 25 April 2016

Date of next meeting – Tuesday 26 April 2016