Apologies were received from Councillors PJ Edwards and JA Hyde.

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 PJ Edwards.

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 26 April 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed development of a petrol filling station, ancillary retail kiosk with associated infrastructure.

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

(Proposed development of a petrol filling station, ancillary retail kiosk with associated infrastructure.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry, Town Clerk, Hereford City Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. Mr A Jones representing ASDA, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He paid tribute to the community work of ASDA in the South Wye area. ASDA had also through the S106 agreement contributed to the provision of a flood alleviation scheme, the Kindle Centre and relocation of St Martin’s bowling club and the reconfiguration of the A49/A465 roundabout.

·        The planning permission granted to ASDA in 2005 had included provision for apartments on the portion of the site on which it was now proposed to locate the petrol station. The applicant was now arguing that a residential development was not viable.  However, there was a higher need for residential accommodation within the City now than when permission had originally been granted.  A development on the Ship Inn site opposite was clearly considered viable.  

·        He questioned the need for another petrol filling station in the County.  There could also be no guarantee that ASDA would remain the provider of petrol at the lowest cost, which was its current reputation.

·        The principal concern was the capacity of the road network.  The road filter to ASDA could only accommodate four cars and this currently led to tailbacks.  Even if the increase in traffic as a result of the development matched the applicant’s claim this would still create additional problems.  The view expressed by Highways England that the proposals would not represent a severe impact on the strategic road network was at odds with the daily experience of congestion by residents.

·        A number of cycleway developments were underway and these would converge on the A49 (Belmont/Asda roundabout).  Additional road traffic would be in conflict with these developments.

Councillor P Rone, an adjoining ward member, also spoke on the application.  He made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on the busiest junction in the County, generating traffic and causing congestion.

·        He questioned the applicant’s conclusion that residential development on the site would not be viable.  If the requirement that a S106 agreement was entered into was the issue making the development unviable it was an option for this to be waived.

·        He questioned the demand for an additional petrol station.  He also suggested the petrol station could be located on a different part of the ASDA site, preventing the construction of an eyesore on a gateway to the City in the central conservation area.

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

·        Demand for housing remained high.  The applicant’s view that residential development was not viable was questioned.

·        It was questionable whether there was demand for another petrol station.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.

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

(Proposed 23 dwellings with garages and car spaces.)

The Development Manager 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 noted that the Committee had refused a previous application on 24 February 2016.  However, that decision was the subject of an appeal and the application had been resubmitted.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Thomas, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of Leominster Civic Society and 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:

·        Nothing in relation to the application appeared to have changed since the Committee had refused the application in February.  The grounds for refusal that had been advanced then remained valid.

·        She expressed disappointment that the Council’s concerns about the Neighbourhood Development Plan’s conformity with the Core Strategy, referred to in paragraph 2.3 of the report, had not been resolved at an earlier stage.  The Town Council’s view and that of local people was that a bypass should be built in advance of any further housing development.  Herefordshire Council considered that approach to be contrary to policy. The Neighbourhood Plan would not be approved in a referendum if it proposed otherwise.  This meant the Plan was effectively stalled.

·        Concerns about air pollution, highway safety and the preservation of a green corridor remained.  Congestion and air pollution had a direct impact upon people in the area and in their vehicles.

·        The changes being proposed to the rail service by Network Rail would mean increased waiting times at the level crossing and this would have a knock on effect on traffic in the vicinity of the proposed development.

·        The importance of preserving the green corridor was not being given the weight it warranted.  There was a risk that the area would be dominated by huge blocks of housing to the detriment of the setting and character of the area.

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

·        The Lead Development Officer explained that in considering the resubmitted application the absence of a 5 year housing land supply was a new factor to which the Committee had to have regard.  The applicant had advanced this as one of the grounds for their appeal. He noted that a seminar on the housing land supply would be arranged for July.

He also stated that he thought it unlikely that the Secretary of State would call in an application for 23 dwellings because it was in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan which was at Regulation 16 stage, as he had done in the case of an application for 100 dwellings at Bartestree.   Leominster Town Council needed to review the comments made by the Council on conformity with the Core Strategy, redraft and resubmit the Plan.  Whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

Date of next site inspection – 10am – 6 June 2016

Date of next meeting – 2pm – 6 June 2016