None.

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

None.

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

Agenda item 10: 150431 – Land Opposite Brook Farm, Marden

Councillor BA Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had been a Marden Parish Councillor when the Parish Council had considered the original application.  He stated that he was able to consider the application before the Committee with an open mind.

Agenda item 11: 152012 – Church Cottage, Hoarwithy, Hereford

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the applicant as a fellow Councillor.

Councillor EJ Swinglehurst declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2015.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

The Planning Committee noted the report on appeals that had been circulated as a supplement.

The Senior Litigator agreed to provide a written answer in response to a question about the payment of costs if an appeal was dismissed at a Public Inquiry.

Outline application for proposed erection of (up to) 35 dwellings with new access and associated landscaping and parking.

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

(Outline application for proposed erection of (up to) 35 dwellings with new access and associated landscaping and parking.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Lewis, of Weston under Penyard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Morris, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Wakefield, 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:

·        The site had been identified as a preferred site for development in the Parish Council’s 2013 housing survey.  The only matter of concern was the density of development.  The proposal was for 35 dwellings representing 27 dwellings per hectare; the Parish Council had requested that the development should be limited to a maximum of 18 houses representing 14 dwellings per hectare. 

·        The Neighbourhood Plan was expected to reach the Regulation 16 Stage within two weeks.

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

·        A development of 35 houses was not large and would provide 11 affordable homes for local people.

·        A density of 18 dwellings was too low and did not make efficient use of the site.

·        It was to be hoped that the 30 mph speed limit could be extended to assist with road safety and that a pedestrian crossing to enable people to reach the bus stop safely would be provided.

·        It was requested that there should be consultation with the Parish Council on any reserved matters submission.

·        It was questioned why at this late stage in the development of the Neighbourhood Plan it was at odds with the Council’s view of what level of density of development was acceptable and why this had not been resolved earlier.  The Development Manager commented that once the Neighbourhood Plan had been through the local consultation process the Council would comment further on any inconsistencies.

·        A Member expressed reservations about the calculation of the five year housing land supply and asked when the Annual Monitoring Report would be produced.

·        The Principal Planning Officer responded to a question about housing density in the village confirming that the proposed density for the site with 35 dwellings would be comparable to the density of two neighbouring sites at Penyard Gardens and Seabrook Place.

·        A concern was expressed about the provision in the draft heads of terms that the maintenance of any on-site public open space would be made the responsibility of a management company.  The security of funding for this arrangement was questioned.  It was argued that the developer should provide the funding to ensure proper care was taken of the public open space.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that the site was a locally preferred site for development with access to village facilities within walking distance.  He accepted Members’ views on the density of development.

RESOLVED:  That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Proposed erection of up to 38 dwellings (including details of access).

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

(Proposed erection of up to 38 dwellings (including details of access)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that the application was a resubmission of an application that had been refused by the Committee on 11 February 2015.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Fountain of Lea Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group, spoke in objection.  Mr B Weatherley, 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:

·        The site was in the open countryside not on the edge of the village.

·        It was a mile from the school and the access would mean that people would have to drive to it.

·        He did not consider it to be the most suitable site in the village for development, as had been suggested by officers.

·        Lea had met its housing allocation with up to 59 dwellings having been approved in the past 6 months.

·        The site was in a valley and he considered it likely to be at risk of flooding.

·        In summary nothing had changed since the Committee had refused the application in February.  The grounds on which that application had been refused, set out at paragraph 3.1 of the report, remained valid.

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

·        The emerging Core Strategy identified a 14% minimum growth target for Lea over the plan period.  That target had already been exceeded.

·        The application was a resubmission and there needed to be good grounds for the Committee to overturn its previous decision.  There had been no significant change to the application.  The reasons for refusing the application in February remained valid.

·        There had been no accidents in the location and highway safety was not a ground for refusal.

·        Drainage issues could be resolved and were not a ground for refusal.  In relation to this view it was observed that Welsh Water had expressed strong concerns about overland flooding downstream of the proposal. It was also noted that the exact cost for the flood attenuation works was not yet known.

·        A Planning inspector had stated in response to an appeal in another county that because an area of land had no landscape designation that did not mean that the landscape could be considered to have no value.

·        The Council had indicated that it was reluctant to adopt the bridges shown on the indicative layout plans.  This had implications for future maintenance.

·        A concern was expressed that the provision in the Core Strategy of minimum growth targets put the Committee in a difficult position in refusing applications, particularly whilst such weight continued to be given to the absence of a five year housing land supply.  It was asked when the Annual Monitoring Report and a revised assessment of the County’s five year housing land supply, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Outline application for 37 dwellings (13 of which would be affordable) with all matters except access reserved for future consideration.

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

(Outline application for 37 dwellings 13 of which would be affordable) with all matters except access reserved for future consideration)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that, as stated in the Committee update, no specific representations of objection had been received in relation to the reconsultation exercise for the revised scheme before the Committee for 37 dwelling houses.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Lewis of Weston under Penyard Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr C Bailey, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Deeley, 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:

·        The Parish Council had no objection to the proposal and the site was a preferred site for development in the Neighbourhood Plan.  He too supported the proposal.

·        He welcomed the public open space to be provided and the provision of a pedestrian crossing which would also benefit neighbouring developments.

·        The density of development reflected the fact that part of the site would not be developed in order to preserve archaeological remains.  The Neighbourhood Plan supported provision of up to 37 dwellings on the site.

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

·        It would be important to ensure that the public open space was properly maintained.

·        The pedestrian crossing and extended 30mph speed limit should be in place before the site was occupied.  The highway safety requirements of this application and application 150888 – land to the west of A40 Weston under Penyard, approved by the Committee earlier in the meeting needed to be considered in conjunction with one another.

·        The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was capacity at the primary school.  The Development Manager confirmed that if this was the case the school could not therefore benefit from the S106 agreement.   It was requested that this matter should be discussed with the Chairman and local ward member. 

·        The Parish Council was to be congratulated for its work in completing a Neighbourhood Plan.

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

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the conditions set out below:-

1          The development shall not commence until approval of the following reserved matters have been obtained from the Local Planning Authority:-

• Appearance

• Landscaping

• Layout

• Scale

An application for reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning authority before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Proposed residential development of up to 50 Homes.

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

(Proposed residential development of up to 50 homes)

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 Bartup of Marden Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr M Parkes, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms R Andrews, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The site was in an elevated position in the open countryside on the edge of Marden. It was isolated and not close to the school or shops.  She agreed with the Parish Council’s view that the site was not sustainable.  It conflicted with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it was not land of the right type,  not in the right place and did not meet the community’s need.

·        The large development proposed would have an adverse impact on the setting and landscape and would be out of character.

·        Haywood lane which joined the A49 to Marden crossed the Grade 2* listed Leystone bridge.  Heavy traffic had to cross this bridge to reach the S& A Davies site which was opposite the proposed development.  The lane was also subject to flooding and was then closed by new floodgates.

·        The Neighbourhood Plan was at Regulation 14 Stage.  The Plan sought to achieve a vibrant village centre with proportionate growth, retaining the villager character.  A consultation exercise had concluded that this was the least favoured site for development out of five identified.  There was a preferred site in the heart of the village. It was proposed that a community hall would be provided as part of that development. 

·        There were concerns that the site was close to the River Lugg flood plain and that water run off could have an adverse effect on the River Lugg and the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  She highlighted the comments of Natural England set out in the Committee update relating to phosphate levels in the River Wye.

·        She cited a number of policy grounds for refusing the application.

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

·        The development would provide affordable housing.

·        The village was sustainable.  The development had connectivity to the village and was also therefore sustainable.  There were no strong grounds for refusal.

·        A Member commented that the report stated that the development would not have an adverse impact on the River Lugg.  Others expressed the view that the cumulative effect of posphates in the rivers was of concern.

·        The Parish Council was opposed to the proposal.

·        The access to the development was 800m from the school/village hall and shop.  It was generally accepted that people would use cars to travel distances greater than 400m.

·        The site had been considered during the 2009  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Proposed oak framed conservatory to the side elevation (south).

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

(Proposed oak framed conservatory to the side elevation (south))

(Councillor PGH Cutter, J Hardwick, EL Holton and EJ Swinglehurst declared non-pecuniary interests.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

1.         C01 – Time limit for development  

2.         C07 – Development in accordance with approved plans and details

3.         The external joinery of the conservatory should be finished in a colour no paler than oak.

            Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in the interests of maintain and enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and to satisfy Herefordshire Local Plan policies DR1 and HBA6 and the relevant heritage aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 – 15 September 2015

Date of next meeting – 16 September 2015