Apologies were received from Councillors JLV Kenyon, AJW Powers, and A Seldon.

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

Councillor EPJ Harvey substituted for Councillor AJW Powers, Councillor MN Mansell for Councillor JLV Kenyon, and Councillor A Warmington for Councillor A Seldon.

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

Agenda item 6:  152568 – The Paddocks, Roman Road, Hereford

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

Agenda item 8: 151438 Land at Fir Tree Cottage, Floyds Lane, Wellington Heath, Ledbury

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the Council’s representatives on the Malvern Hills AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

The Chairman reported that Mike Jones, Senior Litigator, and legal advisor was to leave the Council.  He thanked Mr Jones for his help to him personally and to the Council as a whole and wished him well for the future.

The Committee applauded Mr Jones.

Mr Jones thanked the Members for their support to him and other officers and expressed his appreciation of the way in which Members sought to achieve the best for Herefordshire.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Comment was made on the following appeal decisions:

·        Application 143769 – Upper House Farm, Moreton-on-Lugg that had been refused by the Committee had been granted planning permission on appeal.

Councillor KS Guthrie, local ward member, expressed her disappointment at the appeal decision.  She reported that officers were considering whether there were grounds for judicial review.

A Member observed that a request had been made to Council for a supplementary planning policy to be adopted to help manage applications for poultry house developments of the type proposed in this application.  It was requested that consideration be given to whether the application demonstrated that it would be of assistance to the Council to have such a policy.

The Lead Development Manager commented that officers thoroughly reviewed appeal decisions.  A conference was scheduled with a barrister and the local ward member would be kept informed.   He noted that the authority’s appeal success rate at 83% was above the national average.

Councillor DW Greenow referred to the refusal of an appeal, not referred to in the report, in relation to a Bartestree application.  He expressed his thanks as local ward member, and on behalf of residents and Barterstree and Lugwardine Parish Council, to Mr E Thomas, principal planning officer, for work on the appeal above and beyond the call of duty and requested that this be placed on record.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the Annual Monitoring Report had been completed and would be reported on to Members at a seminar in early July.

Site for proposed residential development of up to 50 houses.

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

(Site for proposed residential development of up to 50 houses.)

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, the local ward member, Councillor MN Mansell spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application needed to be considered in the context of plans for the development of over 1500 homes in the area.  There was already pressure on school and other infrastructure.  Development on the scale proposed risked choking the north of the City and creating air pollution problems replicating conditions similar to those in the south of the City.

·        Bovingdon Park was a quiet, peaceful residential location.

·        There were not sustainable transport links.  The bus service was too infrequent to encourage people not to use their cars.  This would lead to increased car traffic at a dangerous junction.

·        The provision of affordable housing was welcome but he questioned whether the properties would truly be affordable for those on the average local wage.

·        There was concern about the drainage proposals and the risk of flooding.

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

·        The site was suitable for development and the proposal was in accordance with policy.

·        The access was the principal concern given the number of houses proposed and the increased traffic that would be generated.

·        It was requested that consideration should be given to a 40mph speed limit some 400m to the west of the entrance.

·        It was also suggested that a right hand turn lane should be provided for traffic.

·        The development, including any extension of speed limits, needed to be considered within the context of the strategic development of the area as a whole. 

·        It was asked whether the application was premature given the proposed strategic development.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the timeframe for the strategic development, noting that the Three Elms development would be delivered in advance of the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy posing questions about infrastructure provision.

·        A specific issue had been identified on the site visit with a bus turning within the entrance to Bovingdon Park.  It was noted that the Transportation Manager would seek clarification from the public transport team.

·        The Conservation Manager (Landscape), mindful that the site was adjacent to the planned urban extension, had identified the importance of landscaping, “taking into account any adjacent development providing seamless links and connectivity across the site and beyond its boundaries.”

·        Concern was expressed about ensuring the long term management of the public open space.  It was also suggested consideration should be given to the provision of outdoor gym equipment.

·        The drainage proposals needed to be carefully assessed to ensure infiltration would be satisfactory.  The Land Drainage Manager in his response had identified concerns about the geology’s ability to support infiltration measures.

·        A concern was expressed that the S106 contributions would not meet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Proposed new build part earth-sheltered dwelling to include submerged integral garage.

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

(Proposed new build part earth-sheltered dwelling to include submerged integral garage.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs N White, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was the right type of development, innovative and exciting.  

·        There were no highway issues and no archaeological issues. 

·        The application was not detrimental to the amenity of neighbours.

·        The applicants were a local family.

·        The key issue was whether the application was considered as falling within policy RA2 or RA3.  He noted that an application for 28 homes at Stoke Lacy had recently been approved by the Committee.  The application site was as close to the settlement area as that site.  He therefore considered policy RA2 to be relevant and that the application met points 1, 3 and 4 of that policy. 

·        The Parish Council did not object to the application and there were letters in support of it.

·        The scheme was sustainable and represented the organic growth that the community expected.

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

·        Some members considered that the design was of exceptional quality and innovative.  Others considered that it was not exceptional or innovative enough to meet the requirements of policy RA3.

·        The design set high standards and was energy efficient, providing an example for other developers to follow.

·        The application was from a local family and had the support of the local community.

·        The application would not be out of keeping.

·        The application could not be considered under policy RA2.  It was not adjacent to the settlement, although it was close to it suggesting there might be scope to exercise some discretion.

·        The application site was in the open countryside.

·        As the recommendation stated, the application was contrary to policies SS1, SS6, RA2 and RA3.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application was clearly not within policy RA2 as the application site was neither within or adjacent to the identified settlement. The application represented development in the open countryside. Whilst of good design officers did not consider the application represented exceptional design such as to merit approval under policy RA3 and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that he considered the application site to be within the settlement of Stoke Lacy, and that the application was of exceptional design commanding local support.  It compared favourably with the application for 28 houses that had recently been granted approval.

A motion that the application be approved on the grounds that it was sustainable development and of exceptional design was lost following a named vote.

For (7): Councillors BC Baker, DW Greenow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, MN Mansell, FM Norman and A Warmington.

Against (9): Councillors CR Butler,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Proposed erection of 3 dwellinghouses.

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

(Proposed erection of 3 dwelling houses.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr F Roselaar, of Wellington Heath Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Dr J Maclean, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Jolly, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The ground on which the site lay sloped steeply away.  Floyds Lane and Horse Lane were narrow and there was flash run off of rainfall and sewage overflow.

·        There was concern that the proposal for 3x 4 bed dwellings represented overdevelopment.

·        Significant car parking space would need to be provided for the proposed 3x4 bed houses.

·        There were slow worms, wildflowers and orchids on the site.

·        The site was within the Malvern Hills AONB and regard should be had to the AONB Management Plan.

·        The Core Strategy provided for 29 houses to be built in Wellington Heath by 2031.  Seven houses had been built since 2011 so the Parish was on course to meet the housing target.

·        The Parish Council was not opposed to the principle of development but did have reservations about the detail.

·        Paragraphs 6.6 and 6.8 of the report discussed the provisions of policy RA2 referring to the need for proportionate development and for schemes to be appropriate in their context and make a positive contribution to the surrounding environment and its landscape setting, and result in the delivery of schemes that generate the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in the particular settlement, reflecting local demand.  The Parish Council considered 2 or 3 bed homes were needed and paragraph 6.11 of the report supported 3 bed dwellings.

·        Paragraph 6.16 of the report was incorrect.  There had never been vehicular access from Horse Lane to Fir Tree Cottage.  Access had always been via Floyds Lane.

·        The application was for outline permission and access.  She requested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application reserved matters were brought to the Committee for determination.

·        A condition should be imposed requiring an ecological survey to be undertaken before any clearance of the site or other work.

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

·        Concern was expressed about the access. 

·        Concern was also expressed about landscaping and design.

·        The Parish Council was not opposed to the principle of development.

·        Provision of safe parking and turning space for vehicles was important

·        The applicant should be strongly advised that the development should consist of no more than 2 or 3 bed properties.

·        Account should be taken of the local ward member’s request that an ecological survey should be undertaken before work of any sort commenced on site.  It was suggested this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Date of next site inspection – 12 July 2016

Date of next meeting – 13 July 2016