Apologies were received from Councillors A Seldon and WC Skelton.

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 A Seldon and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

None.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on the morning and afternoon of 15 November 2017. (Afternoon minutes to follow.)

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 15 November 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Proposed two additional mobile homes, two touring caravans and the construction of a day room, associated hard standing drainage and re - aligned access track.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

(Proposed two additional mobile homes, two touring caravans and the construction of a day room, associated hard standing drainage and re - aligned access track.) 

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposed demolition of existing agricultural buildings and replacement with six dwellings with associated work space.  Conversion of existing workshop to form single dwelling and associated works. 

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

(Proposed demolition of existing agricultural buildings and replacement with six dwellings with associated work space.  Conversion of existing workshop to form single dwelling and associated works.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Mason, of Vowchurch and Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr H Lewis, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He commented that there was a consensus that work needed to be done to the site. However, Vowchurch and Group Parish Council had highlighted the key concerns about this particular application in its representations set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  Preparing a neighbourhood development plan (NDP) involved considerable time and effort.  A plan had been produced that was consistent with the core strategy.  The plan had been made and could be afforded full weight in determining the application. The application was contrary to the NDP and approving the application would send a message across the county that NDPs had no value.  He questioned whether the addition of 7 dwellings to a settlement of 8 dwellings was proportionate and in keeping with it.

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

·        The interrelationship between the core strategy and neighbourhood development plans required further consideration as part of the forthcoming review of the Core Strategy.

It was requested that, as a general practice, points made by the Committee on the operation of the new Core Strategy during its consideration of the various applications before it were taken into account at any review of the core strategy.

·        It was regrettable that the applicant did not appear to have discussed the development proposals with the local community.

·        It would be costly to develop the site and it was questionable whether it would be viable to develop it if fewer dwellings were permitted, unless these were particularly large properties.

·        The council still had a housing shortfall.

·        Live-work units would be suited to the site.  The design illustrations included in the officer presentation were welcomed.  It would, however, be important for the council and the developer to ensure that these designs were implemented as presented.

·        The NDP said that proposals should “broadly be for no more than 1 to 3 homes on each site”.  This did not preclude a larger development.

·        Weight should be given to the fact that the proposal would result in considerable betterment to the site. 

·        The development was acceptable in principle under both the core strategy and the NDP.

·        The proposed design reflected the local character.

·        The development contained a good housing mix and offered a degree of affordability.

·        The Parish Council and the local ward member had put forward sound reasons why the application should not be approved.  The Committee should respect the neighbourhood development plan.

·        It was questioned whether the development was appropriate to the settlement pattern in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Proposed 5 no. Dwellings with garages and treatment plant.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with additional conditions and an authorisation to resolve some specific matters.

(Proposed 5 no dwellings with garages and treatment plant.)

The Development Manager as the case 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 added that he had received an e-mail on Tuesday from the Parish Council regarding slab levels and the height of the proposed dwellings but this had not stated how the data had been collected. In addition he confirmed that the application considered by the Committee in April 2017 had been withdrawn and the Committee had to consider the application before it afresh as a new application. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr I Goddard of Aymestrey Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Johnston, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would jeopardise a much needed traffic calming scheme and its effectiveness.

·        The church and its tower was the primary landmark in Aymestrey.  The report stated at paragraph 1.3 that levels were proposed to ensure that the ridge line of the new dwellings did not project above the height of the village hall ridgeline.  However, she questioned whether the applicant’s measurement of the levels was correct.  Three sets of measurements had been carried out by various parties in the past three days with different results.  She requested a deferral to enable the facts to be established.

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

·        It was proposed that the application should be approved but with a delegated authority to officers to agree matters relating to roof levels, the positioning of the hedgerow to accommodate the access and the location of the parish gateway, after consultation with the chairman and local ward member.

·        It was observed that Historic England considered the proposal to create “less than substantial harm” as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The setting of Aymestrey church had not to date been harmed in the way that the setting of many other churches had been and should be preserved.

·        The phrase “less than substantial harm” in the NPPF was unfortunate because it implied less detriment than was in fact the case.  The proposal did involve harm to a grade 1 listed building.  Paragraph 132 of the NPPF stated that great weight should be given to the conservation of such buildings and their setting.  The harm should be weighed against the public benefits.  

·        The character of the setting was more linear than the proposal.

·        The relative height of the dwellings to the village hall and the tower was crucial to ensure that the tower remained the dominant feature.

·        A view was expressed that the development would not have an adverse impact on the setting.

·        Some members indicated that they considered that the application should be refused.

·        A member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Date of next site inspection – 16 January 2018

Date of next meeting – 17 January 2018