Apologies were received from Councillors J Hardwick, EL Holton, JA Hyde.

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

Councillor GJ Powell substituted for Councillor JA Hyde and Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor EL Holton.

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

Agenda item 7; 163797 – Carey Bank, Kilforge Road, Carey

Councillors PGH Cutter and EJ Swinglehurst declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2017.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were none.

Change of use of part of paddock from equestrian to residential. Construction of new 3 bed dwelling with associated garaging, access and landscaping.

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

(Change of use of part of paddock from equestrian to residential.  Construction of new 3-bed dwelling with associated garaging, access and landscaping.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

It was noted that the update sheet contained a typographical amendment to the informative at the end of the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Du Cros, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There were a number of letters in support of the application.  The applicants had made a significant contribution to the local community and were well regarded.

·        In terms of detail, he commented that the application entailed replacement tree planting, and appropriate landscaping proposals.  The property was well designed and would have no significant impact.

·        National policy was to facilitate people continuing to live in their communities as they grew older.  He considered that a number of core strategy policies could be interpreted to support the application which would provide accommodation to meet the applicants’ future needs enabling them to continue to live in their community.  It would also release a property for occupation by another family.

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

·        Provision of accommodation for an ageing population was a national problem.  The applicants’ proposal to make provision for themselves should therefore be welcomed.  A number of members expressed sympathy for this point of view.

·        A view was expressed that the proposal was sustainable development... 

·        A suggestion was made that the council’s policy should be reviewed to allow for account to be taken of social care needs.  Balanced against this view was the need to protect against encroachment into the open countryside and the precedent that granting permission might set.

·        The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had expressed concerns about the proposal.  It was questioned why the applicant had not redeveloped the existing stables which the Conservation Manager had suggested would reduce the landscape impact.  In addition, no consideration appeared to have been given to an extension to the existing property rather than a new building, or to a bungalow.

·        The proposal was for a dwelling in the open countryside contrary to policy. Weight had to be given to the fact that the site was in the Wye Valley AONB.  The proposed dwelling had a height of some 7.9 metres.  As an elevated site in a highly protected landscape it would have a demonstrable and significant impact on the AONB that was not outweighed by the benefits of the development.

·        The proposal was not compliant with the Little Dewchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) to which the report stated significant weight could be attributed.  The Committee should give due weight to the NDP.  The Parish Council had not supported the proposal.

·        The personal circumstances of the applicants were not a material planning consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Proposed dwelling.

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

(Proposed dwelling)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Page, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was a modest proposal in a quiet part of Kimbolton on land that had not been used for some 20 years.

·        Neighbours and residents supported the proposal.  The Parish Council had no objection. There had been 8 letters of support and no letters of objection. 

·        He did not agree with the Transportation Manager’s comments.  The road was very quiet, used by local traffic. Visibility was good for a country lane.  The impact of one or two more cars would be minimal and not detrimental to highway safety.  The new access would be an improvement.

·        Kimbolton was identified as a settlement of focus for proportionate housing development and the proposal would contribute to the housing supply total.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that the development was in open countryside and wholly contrary to policy as set out in the report.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that there was merit in the application.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal is contrary to Policies SS1, SS4, RA3 and MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan: Core Strategy given the proposal site is outside the reasonable limits of Kimbolton in open countryside such that a choice of modes of transport and the requirement to achieve sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) cannot be achieved.

2.         The proposed means of access does not have sufficient visibility splays, and accordingly the proposal would have an adverse impact on highway safety contrary to the provisions of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan-Core Strategy.

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 and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.         

(The meeting adjourned between 11.20 and 11.35 am)

Site for the proposed erection of 5 dwellings.

The Committee agreed that it was minded to refuse the application and authorised officers to defend an appeal on a number of grounds.

(Site for the proposed erection of 5 dwellings.)

The Chairman highlighted the statement in the update sheet that the application was now the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  This meant the Council was not entitled to make a formal decision on the application, but instead confirmation was being sought of the matters upon which the appeal should be defended.

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.

The Development Manager added that the proposal was considered to be unsustainable development as a consequence of the failure to comply with policy MT1.  He also proposed that Chapter 4 of the NPPF – promoting sustainable transport should be a ground for defending an appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Edwards of Titley and District Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Morris, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was considerable local opposition to the application.

·        As reflected in the representation from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), included in the update sheet, there was a feeling that the applicant was circumventing obligations by manipulating the Council’s procedures, damaging goodwill.  When approval had been granted for 5 dwellings on an adjoining part of the site it had been understood that a buffer zone would be retained between the farm and Eywood park. 

·        He considered that the policy grounds for refusing the application should be strengthened, specifying the following:  SS1, RA2, MT1, LD1 and LD4.

·        He added that in terms of housing provision in the settlement area there were two settlements: Titley and Staunton on Arrow.  To date of the minimum target of 23 dwellings, 11 had been identified in Titley and none in Staunton on Arrow.  He considered that it should be recognised that there were a large number of farmsteads capable of being converted to dwellings meaning that there was strong potential for windfall sites to meet the minimum housing target.

·        There had been two severe flooding incidents.

·        The proposal was detrimental to the nearby listed buildings and Eywood Park.

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

·        It was noted that an application for storage of caravans had been refused in 2008 on the grounds of landscape impact and highway safety.  It was questioned why both these grounds were not relevant to the current application.

·        It was also questioned why the strategic housing land availability assessment had assessed the site as brownfield land.

·        Regard should be had to the comments of the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust as set out in the report.

·        As the CPRE had identified, there was a lack of information with the application and the applicant appeared to have made no effort to engage with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Date of next site inspection – 14 March 2017

Date of next meeting – 15 March 2017