Apologies were received from Councillors PJ Edwards, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, 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 WLS Bowen substituted for Councillor PJ Edwards, Councillor MT McEvilly for Councillor KS Guthrie, Councillor SM Michael for Councillor A Seldon, and Councillor A Warmington for Councillor AJW Powers.

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

Agenda item 7: 152041 - proposed residential development of 10 dwellings (amendment to original application) at land to the north of Ashperton village hall, Ashperton.

Councillor A Warmington declared a non-pecuniary interest because Canon Pyon cricket club for whom he sometimes played had made representations on the application,

Agenda item 8:  161486 - outline application for residential development of up to 21 dwellings with means of access at land at pinfarthings, off north Mappenors Lane, Leominster

Councillor EL Holton declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the person speaking on behalf of Leominster Town Council.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

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

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

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

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 highlighted the position of listed buildings in relation to the proposed development.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs F Helme, of Ashperton Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Edwards, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group, spoke in objection.  Mr H Davies, the applicant, and Mrs P Upton, 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 generated considerable public interest.  The applicant had held consultation events and engaged with the local community on the proposal.  The original scheme for 27 houses had been reduced to a proposal for 10 houses in response to local views. 

·        The Parish Council had fully debated the proposal.

·        There had been 48 objections.  The majority of local residents considered the scheme to be inappropriate.

·        There was a view that the scheme was in the wrong location and would have a negative effect on Ashperton.  It was considered that it would be visible from the road, with properties situated prominently above the A417, and have a suburban appearance.  Piecemeal development was preferable to what would be an enclave uncharacteristic of the area.

·        There was concern that the development would be incongruous with the listed buildings in the village.  Paragraph 6.49 of the report stated that in designing the scheme regard had been had to concern expressed about the impact on the setting.  However, in his opinion the development would significantly alter the view.  Whilst it was located at a low point of the site it was still much higher than the existing settlement.

·        Whilst, as paragraph 6.46 explained, the site had no formal landscape designation local residents considered that it did have an important landscape value adding to the amenity of the area.  The development would not enhance the landscape.  The community was not opposed to development in the village but considered that there were better sites that would not have such an adverse impact.

·        In conclusion, the development was proportionate, it could be debated as to whether it was sustainable development having regard to policy RA2, and it would contribute to the housing supply.  The question was whether these factors outweighed the local view that the development had a detrimental impact on the landscape and the proposal was therefore contrary to paragraph 17 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy SS6 of the Core Strategy.

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

·        The development was of modest size, of low density and of good design.

·        The proposal would provide additional homes for the village for which there was a need.

·        The applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Outline application for residential development of up to 21 dwellings with means of access.

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

(Outline application for residential development of up to 21 dwellings with means of access.)

(This item was considered after application 161638.)

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 Pendleton of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Jones, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor FM Norman spoke on the application together with the adjoining local ward member, Councillor JM Bartlett.

Councillor Norman made the following principal comments:

·        She shared the concerns expressed by the Town Council in its objection to the Scheme about a range of highways issues.  These included the narrowness of the roads within the estate with many parked vehicles, the high pollution and congestion on Green Lane and the Bargates.  She questioned the view of the Transportation Manager that highway capacity was not an issue.  It was estimated that the development would generate some 200 additional trips a day in a location where there were already problems.  There were also concerns about the junction of Green Lane and Ginhall Lane.

·        The proposal would involve the loss of valued open space.  Although it was private land the space had been enjoyed by local residents for many years and was a green corridor enhancing health and wellbeing. 

·        It was important that trees and verges on the site were protected.

·        She was concerned that if the development were approved further development on adjoining land would follow.

·        The site was on a slope and she was concerned about run off into the Kenwater and River Lugg.  Although Welsh Water had no objection there had been complaints about sewage overflow into Green Lane.

·        The Core Strategy proposed an additional 2,300 houses for Leominster, a 45% increase.  This was a huge challenge. It appeared that every available space was being taken for housing.

·        If the development was approved it was imperative that the Town Council and local ward members were consulted on the detail.  S106 money should be allocated to seek to alleviate traffic problems.

Councillor Bartlett made the following principal points:

·        If the application was approved local ward members should be consulted at the reserved matters stage.  She particularly requested that landscape character documents should be discussed with them.  The S106 agreement should also be discussed with the Town Council.

·        She highlighted the importance of the footpaths crossing the site in particular ZC5 and ZC7. 

·        Requiring bungalows to be provided on certain parts of the site would preserve the privacy of existing residents and prevent footpaths becoming enclosed alleyways.

·        The site had never been within the Neighbourhood Development Plan settlement boundary and was not one of the sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).  Sites for some 2,000 new dwellings had already been identified in Leominster, leaving 15 years of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Proposed erection of a dwelling.

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

(Proposed erection of a dwelling.)

(This item was considered after application 152041 but before application 161486)

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 J Burley, a local resident, spoke in objection to the scheme.  Mr C Goldsworthy the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Every resident in Tensing Road objected to the proposal.  Their concerns included traffic, road safety and the disruption associated with construction.

·        Approval would set a precedent encouraging other owners in the area to build in their gardens.

·        He noted that previous applications had been refused and sought clarification of the grounds for refusal.

·        If the development proceeded an access of Ferndale Road would be preferable.

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

·        The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the most recent application, in 2009, had been refused on the grounds of amenity.

·        Whilst regrettable the personal circumstances of neighbouring residents and fear of stress occasioned by construction works were not material planning considerations.  The impact could be mitigated through conditions.

·        The development was sustainable and its impact limited.

·        The loss of large gardens for family homes was of regret.

·        It was asked whether there was any possibility of securing an alternative access.

·        It was requested in terms of reserved matters that conditions be imposed requiring the proposed dwelling to be a bungalow, specifying the ridge height, and that as many trees and as much of the hedgerow should be retained as possible.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee’s wish that conditions secure a single storey dwelling and minimise any disruption during construction through controls on matters such as site operative parking and storage of materials had been noted.  It was to be hoped that any construction phase would be relatively short.  The Committee had to determine the application before it and this did not include an alternative access.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that an access off Ferndale Road would be preferable and have the support of the residents of Tensing Road.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.         C02 (A02 Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission))

2.         C03 (A03 Time limit for commencement (outline permission))

3.         C04 (A04 Approval of reserved matters)

4.         C05 (A05 Plans and particulars of reserved matters)

5.         C06 (B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans - drawings       received 25 May 2016)

6.         C98 (G12 Hedgerow planting)

7.         CBK (I16 Restriction of hours during construction)

8.         CD6 (L04 Comprehensive & Integrated draining of site)

9.         CE6 (M17 Water Efficiency – Residential)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Date of next site inspection – 13 September 2016

Date of next meeting – 14 September 2016