Apologies were received from Councillors JA Hyde and D Summers.

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

It was reported that subsequent to the publication of the agenda papers Councillor D Summers had replaced Councillor JLV Kenyon as a member of the Committee.

Councillor EPJ Harvey substituted for Councillor D Summers and Councillor GJ Powell for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

Agenda item 8: 160014 - Proposed erection of 12 dwellings, new vehicular access and associated works including new play area/open space at land adjacent to stoke lacy village hall, Stoke Lacy, Herefordshire.

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest because as a former ward member for that area he knew several residents.

Agenda item 9: P143252/F - Proposed development of 12 nos. Dwellings, consisting of 5 nos. Affordable and 7 nos. Open market. Works to include new road and landscaping at land adjoining Kingsleane, Kingsland, Leominster, Herefordshire.

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew one of the public speakers.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew one of the public speakers.

Agenda item 10: 160741 - Site for proposed dwelling and garage at land adjacent to Galen House, Cherry Orchard, Kings Acre, Hereford.

Councillor AJW Powers declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Breinton Parish Council.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 6 June 2016 and 15 June 2016.

It was reported that one of the public speakers had been omitted from the Minutes of 6 June 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 6 June 2016, as amended, and 16 June 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman invited the Neighbourhood Planning Team leader to provide an update on the production of Neighbourhood Development Plans.

She reported that 3 plans had now been adopted, 3 had had successful referendums and had been submitted to the cabinet member for adoption, 2 further referendums were scheduled, 9 plans were at examination, and 5 plans were at regulation 16 stage.  22 plans therefore now carried material weight.  There were 101 designated neighbourhood areas.  A further 3 applications to designate neighbourhood areas had been received.

The Chairman reminded Members that a seminar on delivering housing growth had been arranged for the morning of 25 July.

Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application).

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

(Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application.)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposed erection of 12 dwellings, new vehicular access and associated works including new play area/open space.

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

(Proposed erection of 12 dwellings, new vehicular access and associated works including new play area/open space.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Westwood, Clerk to Stoke Lacy Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Baum, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs J Joseph, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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 had been subject to good discussion with the local community including at public meetings.  The applicant was a local resident who had lived there all his life and had an interest in providing housing for the benefit of future generations.  He had reduced the scale of the proposed development in response to local views.

·         The key issue was whether the application represented disproportionate development, noting that the Committee had recently approved an application for 28 dwellings in Stoke Lacy.  The nature of the settlement meant that housing development had to be concentrated at Stoke Cross, exacerbating the impact.

·         The Parish Council objected to the proposal and there were also 24 letters of objection.

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

·         It was asked whether approval of the application would preclude any further development.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that each application had to be considered on its merits.  The larger the scale of additional development proposed the more likely it would be that the application would be assessed as to whether such growth was proportionate.

·         In theory it appeared that there might be no limit to proportionate growth if the housing number base was recalculated after each approved development.

·         The A465 was a fast road and it would be difficult to restrict traffic speed to 30 mph.  It was important, having regard to paragraph 2a of the draft heads of terms that relocation/redesign of the 30mph features did take place.

·         Gateway features were necessary.  It was observed, however, that these required maintenance to achieve their purpose.

·         Some concern was expressed about the provision for the maintenance of on-site open space.

·         The development did not represent overdevelopment of the site in question.

·         The proposal provided for areas of new planting.  It would be important to ensure that these were properly managed.

·         The developer should be encouraged to provide good quality housing incorporating energy efficiency measures.

·         Taking account of the recently approved application for 28 homes a total provision of 40 new homes, if the application were approved, did not seem to be proportionate or sustainable.  It was regrettable that the Committee was unable to exercise any control over the pace and timing of developments once approved.

·         Clarification of paragraph 6.10 of the report was sought.  The Lead Development Manager provided a correction confirming that policy RA2 could carry weight in this instance.

·         In response to a question about the consistency of paragraphs 6.18  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Proposed development of 12 nos. Dwellings, consisting of 5 nos. Affordable and 7 nos. Open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.

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

(Proposed development of 12 nos. Dwellings, consisting of 5 nos. Affordable and 7 nos. Open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.)

The Lead 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 originally approved the application in January 2015, subject to a Section 106 agreement.  However, following the decision a Judicial Review had been made and the decision notice subsequently quashed. The application had been resubmitted for determination. The presentation highlighted the position of the listed buildings in the locality together with the Conservation Area.  Members had visited the site and surrounding area as part of a committee site visit the day before.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Thompson, of Kingsland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Drayton, of DPDS consulting, speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sharp-Smith, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mrs W Schenke, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         He highlighted the significance of the protection of the conservation area, and the boundary of the settlement area.  The Core Strategy supported the importance of preserving conservation areas and listed buildings and their settings.  The development was outside the settlement boundary but inside the conservation area.  There was a duty to protect the conservation area.

·         Some weight should be given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan which supported infill and windfall development within settlement boundaries.

·         A number of previous applications to develop the site had been refused because of the impact on the Conservation Area before permission had been granted in January 2015.  That grant of permission had, however, been overturned by judicial review.

·         Kingsland had a number of identified sites for housing development including affordable housing.  The proposed development was therefore unnecessary.  Small pockets of development were preferred.

·         He questioned Welsh Water’s lack of objection to the proposal.  This did not appear to acknowledge the ongoing problems with sewerage.

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

·         It appeared that there was a difference of opinion within the local community about the application.

·         The Committee had approved the same application in January 2015.  Whilst that decision had been quashed following judicial review, the grounds for that challenge, as referred to at paragraph 1.5 of the report were questioned.  It was asserted that the development would not be detrimental to the conservation area that there was no adverse impact on the heritage assets in the vicinity and that the provision of 12 houses including 5 affordable dwellings would be of benefit, noting the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply.  The design of the proposed dwellings were an improvement upon the earlier application.

·         There was a presumption against development in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Site for proposed dwelling and garage.

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

(Site for proposed dwelling and garage.)

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.

Although some people had registered to speak none were present when the application was considered.

Councillor WLS Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member for this application in place of Councillor RI Matthews.  In accordance with the Council’s Constitution he spoke on the application making the following principal comments:

·         The application was infill development and was in accordance with the Core Strategy.

·         There were amenities within walking distance.

·         A development of a single dwelling was sustainable.

·         The access had been used as an access for agricultural purposes for a number of years prior to serving the current housing development.  He had no knowledge of any access problems having arisen.  Two additional dwellings had been approved in recent years causing no problems.  Paragraph 32 of the NPPF stated that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development were severe.  The applicant had stated that it was proposed to develop passing bays along the access road which would represent an improvement to the access.

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

·         The development of a single dwelling in a sustainable location complying with policy could be supported.

·         The Development Manager clarified that if the owner of the land proposed for passing bays declined to make that land available the applicant would not be able to implement any grant of planning permission. 

·         In response to a question about the net environmental benefit the Development Manager commented that landscaping would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·         The access was extremely narrow and the scope for the provision of passing bays was questioned.  There was no justification for exacerbating the existing access problem.

·         It was disappointing that the site had not been identified during the development of the Neighbourhood Development Plan and had only emerged at this late stage.

·         Reference was made to the Parish Council’s objection to the proposal.

Councillor Bowen was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged the scheme was not perfect but considered that it was nonetheless worthy of support.

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

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.         C06 - Approved Plans

5.         C01 - Samples of external materials

6.         G11 - Landscaping scheme – implementation

7.         Prior to the commencement of development, engineering details and plans (including drainage arrangements) for the proposed improvements to the access from the A438 to the application site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details and shall be completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Date of next site inspection – 2 August 2016

Date of next meeting – 3 August 2016