Apologies were received from Councillor J Hardwick.

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

Councillor RI Matthews substituted for Councillor J Hardwick.

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 6 April 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman announced that a seminar on the 5 yr housing land supply had been arranged for members of the Committee, but open to all Councillors, for the morning of 10 May.

He also reminded members of the arrangements for an additional meeting of the Committee on the afternoon of Monday 6 June 2016 to consider the southern link road application, noting that this would be preceded by a site visit in the morning.

The Lead Development Manager referred to the appeal decision in relation to application 143116 – land to the south of Leadon Way Ledbury where the Inspector had concluded that the Council did not have the required 5 yr housing land supply.

He provided a statement on the current position on the housing land supply and how the Core Strategy Policies should be applied in the circumstances.

It was agreed that the statement would be circulated to all Members.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Proposed development of 69 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle access and all associated works.

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

(Proposed development of 69 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle access and all associated works.)

(This application was considered after agenda item 8 – application 152042.)

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 Council’s Constitution, Councillor TM James acting on behalf of the local ward member, Councillor PA Andrews, spoke on the application.  He commented that there were two principal concerns about the proposal: traffic management and the effect on residents and the possibility that the development would lead to development of a playing field next to the application site.

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

·         Particular concern was expressed about the suitability of the access off Baggally Street, whether the emergency services would be impeded and whether alternative options had been explored.  It was suggested a one way system should also be considered.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that other options had been investigated over a period of some 10 years.  However, constraints presented by land ownerships and covenants had meant that it had continued to be concluded that an access off Bagally Street was the only realistic and viable option.

·         A Member suggested that consideration should be given to using compulsory purchase powers to secure a satisfactory access.

·         An informal arrangement seemed to have developed whereby people only parked on one side of Baggally Street.  It was suggested that a more formal arrangement should be considered to ensure this arrangement was maintained to allow vehicles safe passage.

·         There was a question as to whether the development would generate more traffic than the former school site had done.

·         The proposal represented appropriate development of a brownfield site.  Local residents supported development but did not support the proposed access.

·         Note should be taken of the opportunity identified by West Mercia Police to design out crime as part of the scheme.

·         The re-opening of the bridge was welcome as it would improve cycle and pedestrian links within the City and have environmental and health benefits.

·         A Member reiterated his concern that yet another development was proposing that the maintenance of any on-site Public Open Space (POS) would be undertaken by a management company.  This did not provide sufficient assurance.

·         The provision in the S106 agreement provided for funding of the SUDS for 60 years but was silent as to how maintenance would be financed after that time.

·         There was no provision for ongoing maintenance of the on-site play area.

·         The improvements associated with the Yazor Brook were to be welcomed.

·         A proposal was made that consideration of the application should be deferred to allow further consideration to be given to an alternative access.

The Transportation Manager commented that the width of Baggally Street at 5.5m was suitable for the development.  A residents parking scheme and a one way system could be considered.  However, he would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

Site for proposed extra care development comprising of up to 80 passivhaus designed one, two and three bed apartments and complementary indoor and outdoor facilities, including swimming pool, gym, sauna, café, hair salon, medical and treatment rooms, allotments, putting greens and petanque pitch with associated landscaping.

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

(Site for proposed extra care development comprising of up to 80 passivhaus designed one, two and three bed apartments and complementary indoor and outdoor facilities, including swimming pool, gym, sauna, cafe, hair salon, medical and treatment rooms, allotments, putting greens and petanque pitch with associated landscaping, at land north of Whitestone business park.)

(This application was considered first on the agenda ahead of agenda item 7 – application 160613 which then followed.)

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

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

He commented that the applicant had listened to comments made in response to the application including those of the Parish Council and modified the application to offer an accessible much needed extra care facility.  He invited the Committee to approve the application.

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

·         The Parish Council had expressed a concern that the development would be divorced from Withington village.  It was to be hoped that anything that could be done to integrate the development with the village, for example the sharing of social and leisure facilities within the development, would enhance the project.

·         There was support for the provision of extra care accommodation, the fact that it was a Passivhaus development and the benefits to road safety as a result of the provision of a crossing of the A4103.

·         The developer had been responsive to comments from the local community.

·         It was to be hoped that planting could help to decrease the impact of any noise from the nearby industrial estate and enhance the development’s appeal.

·         The benefits of the scheme outweighed any concerns.

In response to questions about the development’s sustainability and long term management the Principal Planning Officer commented that this had been considered.  Market demand and costs dictated that the scheme was relatively high density and consisted of apartments.  The Section 106 agreement would govern occupancy of the units for extra care use.

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

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary:

1.         A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission)

2.         A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission)

3.         A04 Approval of reserved matters

4.         H03 Visibility splays

5.         H04 Visibility over frontage - 2m from the C1130 to east as per drawing

6.         H06 Vehicular access construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

Proposed dwelling.

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

(Proposed 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 F Lowden, of Acton Beauchamp Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr R Oliver, the applicant, also spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·         The application was for a modest house and could be considered as an infill development.

·         A previous application for development on the site had been approved by Malvern Hills District Council.

·         There were no objections and a considerable number of letters of support given the size of the village.

·         The proposal represented sustainable development and was an example of people seeking self-reliantly to provide for themselves in older age.

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

·         It was to be regretted that a policy had not been included in the Core Strategy that took account of the growing need in the County for accommodation for older people that enabled relatives to provide support.

·         The application was contrary to policies RA3 and H2 and represented development in the open countryside.

·         The proposal did represent sustainable development.

·         There had been no discussions about whether the house could be preserved as an affordable dwelling or whether an extension to the existing house was a better way of achieving the same objective.

·         Whatever sympathy there may be for the application the Committee was obliged to apply the Council’s adopted policies, with which the application did not comply.

The Lead Development Manager commented that there were no material planning grounds on which to support the application.  The development was an open market property in the open countryside contrary to policy.  However, it was open to the Committee to take a view that it represented sustainable development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that it was a modest infill development which met a social need.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to any conditions considered necessary.

Proposed outline application with some matters reserved for 39 no. dwellings, garages, roads, school nature area, off road school parking and allotments.

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

(Proposed outline application with some matters reserved for 39 no. Dwellings, garages, roads, school nature area, off road school parking and allotments.)

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, Dr R Jack, of Orleton Parish Council spoke in opposition the Scheme.  Mrs A Turtle, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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 scale of the development was large in the local context and did not represent organic growth.

·      The site did have flooding problems and had been underwater all winter.  Roads near the site were also subject to flooding.

·      Flooding led to raw sewage being discharged into Orleton Brook.  The development would increase the strain on a sewerage system that was already overloaded.

·      The response from Severn Trent included in the Committee update suggested Severn Trent had no record of residents experiencing sewerage difficulties.  However, residents had been complaining for years about the problems they had.  There was little confidence locally in Severn Trent.  Severn Trent should be required to make the necessary improvements in advance of any development.

·      A flood alleviation scheme should also be in place before any development.

·      The access road was very busy and provision of a safe crossing was essential.

·      The main Orleton play area was at the other end of the village.

·      The proposed allotments and nature area were not required.

·      There was the potential for some development on the site, the key was how to achieve that satisfactorily.

·      Consideration of the application should be deferred until all the issues had been addressed.

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

·         In the Committee update the officer comments stated that planning authorities would only refuse planning applications on the basis of inadequate sewerage infrastructure where it could be demonstrated that there was environmental harm as a result of the development taking place.  Some Members suggested that whilst there may be no significant effect on the River Wye SAC there would be an adverse effect on the River Teme catchment area, which was itself a triple SSI, if sewerage and flooding improvements were not made.

·         There was concern that the scale of the development might overwhelm the village and it was asked whether phasing of the development could be considered.  The Lead Development Manager commented that this would not be appropriate in the case of such a small scheme.  Market demand would dictate the pace of development.

·         There was general support for the view that sewerage and flooding issues needed to be resolved as a prerequisite in advance of any development.  It was noted that the Committee had been recommended to refuse a recent application at Clehonger until Welsh Water had made the necessary infrastructure improvements.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

Date of next site inspection – 17 May 2016

Date of next meeting – 18 May 2016