There were none.

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

There were none.

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

Agenda item 7: 162166 – Land to the South of Martindale, Kingsland

Councillor LC Tawn declared a non-pecuniary interest because he lived close to the application site.

Agenda item 9: 160238 – Land at Oak Tree View, Beggars Ash Lane, Wellington Heath

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

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were none.

Outline planning application for residential development and associated works.

Officers authorised to grant planning permission subject to concluding legal agreement.

(Outline planning application for residential development of 10 dwellings and associated works.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  Whilst not referenced in the title of the report he reported that the application documentation stated that the application was for 10 dwellings.  He proposed that for clarification a condition be added to the recommendation limiting the development to up to 10 dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Sawyers, of Kingsland Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Davies, the applicant’s agent, 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:

·        The site access was opposite the entrance to Luctonians Rugby Club.  There was a considerable amount of traffic on the A4110 including large lorries from quarries and from chicken farms.  Traffic exceeded the 40mph speed limit. The report recorded accident data but did not include a further recent accident.  The combination of the access to the rugby club and two nearby road junctions created a problem. 

·        Even with the proposed visibility splays the access would still be dangerous.

·        The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was at Regulation 16 stage and it was important that it was given weight.  The proposed site was outside the settlement boundary which had a definitive end point at the monument to the battle of Mortimer’s cross.  Development should not be permitted to dribble out without limitation into the countryside.

·        The NDP provided for the housing target within the Core Strategy to be met over the life of the Strategy which was up until 2031.

·        The monument to the battle was important as was the site of the battle which was attracting increasing interest.  The site was important historically and as an attraction to tourists.  It was thought that the development site potentially formed part of the battlefield. The Conservation Manager (historic buildings) had objected to the application.

·        The development comprised 3 and 4 bed houses with no smaller houses or affordable element.

·        The sewerage system, contrary to Welsh Water’s claims, was inadequate.

·        The principal grounds for objection were highway safety, the site was outside the settlement boundary and contrary to the NDP, and there was no support for it within the village.

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

·        The principal concern was the volume and speed of traffic and pedestrian and highway safety.

·        The site was suitable for development if a 30 mph speed limit was imposed.

·        Consideration should also be given to a village gateway.

·        A pedestrian crossing should be provided.

·        Kingsland was a linear development and the site would be an extension of the village.

·        A development of 10 homes was not problematic.

·        The site was opposed by the Parish Council and was not identified for development within the NDP.

·        The Conservation Manager (historic buildings) had expressed his concerns about the application.

·        The setting of the village was important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Residential development comprising up to 20 dwellings, including up to 10 affordable dwellings with associated new access (via Tump Lane)and car parking arrangements for both existing and proposed and community facility.

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

(Residential development comprising up to 20 dwellings, including up to 10 affordable dwellings with associated new access (via Tump Lane)and car parking arrangements for both existing and proposed and community facility.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Cook, of Much Birch Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K James and Miss R Rigby, local residents, spoke in objection.  Ms A Shaw, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The settlement along Tump Lane was one of the largest groupings of houses in the rural area of his ward.

·        Whilst he supported the provision of additional affordable housing the proposed site was not suitable.

·        A development of 20 homes was significant in the context of a settlement of some 60 dwellings.

·        Tump Lane was a country road linking the A49 and A466.

·        Local amenities needed to be accessed at both Much Birch to the north and Wormelow to the south. The settlement was equidistant between them.

·        Bothe the primary school and the GP surgery were very good.

·        The proposal would provide a footpath, but not continuous to the north providing safe passage to Much Birch, but not to the south. It should be noted that the steiner academy to which many local parents sent their children was situated to the south. Pedestrian access was essential.

·        A request for a reduction in the 40mph speed limit to 30 mph at the junction with the A466 was under consideration.

·        He noted the findings of a 2016 traffic survey, adding that when school children were being dropped off or collected Tump Lane was extremely busy.  There was a risk of traffic on the A49 being backed up.

·        The level of concern about Tump Lane was such that a community group had been set up to liaise with Highways England.

·        Residents of the pilgrim hotel exited onto Tump Lane.  This distorted the traffic speed figures.

·        The new footpath proposed had some appeal to residents.  However, the proposed width was quite shallow and the road safety audit suggested that vegetation bordering the path may make pedestrians walk on the road creating a hazard.

·        The Committee had refused a previous application for 12 dwellings in March 2014 on the grounds of poor connectivity and landscape impact.

·        Parking was an issue.  Eleven vehicles currently parked in the garage area.  No replacement parking area had been identified.

·        Much Birch was on target to provide the homes required in the Core Strategy and was not resistant to development. The local community considered that the proposal was in the wrong location.

·        The proposal to provide a play area for children was welcome but the proposed site was crossed by telephone lines and was unsuitable.

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

·        There was considerable concern about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller site including stationing of two mobile homes, 2 touring caravans, treatment plant, sheds and associated parking/turning/hardstanding and new access.

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

(Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller site including stationing of two mobile homes, 2 touring caravans, treatment plant, sheds and associated parking/turning/hardstanding and new access.)

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.

He reported that a further representation had been received outlining a number of points in the report that required correction.  He confirmed that the reference to the river leadon at paragraph 1.2 of the report was incorrect and that a stream ran along the western side of the site; that the site was within Wellington Heath Parish not within Ledbury Town and that the land was settled farmland on river terrace not timbered farmland plateau as it was described at paragraph 1.5.  He added that the Wellington Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan was not at Regulation 15 stage and that no material weight could therefore be given to it.  The corrections did not change the assessment of the application and the recommendation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr F Rozelaar, of Wellington Heath Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Davis, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Baines spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

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 applicant’s family were Romany Gypsies.  That was not at issue.  Her concerns about the application related to lifestyle, landscape impact and sustainability.

·        Paragraph 6.8 of the report set out the criteria for policy H4 – traveller sites.  She noted that paragraph 6.12 of the report referred to the definition of “gypsies and travellers” for the purposes of planning policy and the report stated that the applicant’s supporting statement “in principle” addressed the points to be considered in determining whether a person was a “gypsy or traveller”.  She asserted that the applicant needed to satisfy the requirements of the policy in practice not merely in principle.  She detailed the family circumstances and questioned the sustainability of the proposed site, having regard to those circumstances, and whether, also given those circumstances, it was credible that the applicant would return to and sustain a travelling lifestyle and the criteria for policy H4 would be met.

·        She questioned whether the proposal complied with the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance issued in May 2008: designing gypsy and traveller sites – good practice guide.

·        The proposed access while better than the existing access would need considerable work to address changes in ground level.

·        There were many pitches available on gypsy sites in the locality.  The Planning Appeal decision dismissing an appeal against the Committee’s refusal of application 141687 - land at Oakley Cottage, mid summer orchard, Ridgehill had confirmed this position.

·        The site was adjacent to the Malvern Hills AONB and in open countryside.

·        Whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Date of next site inspection – 31 January 2017

Date of next meeting – 1 February 2017