To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Paul Andrews and Graham Jones.

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

Councillor David Summers substituted for Councillor Paul Andrews. Councillor Mike Jones substituted for Councillor Graham Jones.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor William Wilding declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 8, application 201961 – Hartleton Farm; the applicant was a known associate. Councillor Wilding would leave the meeting for the determination of the application.

Councillor Toni Fagan declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 6, application 203907 – land at Woodside Stables and agenda item no. 7, application 204346 – land adjacent to Steepways. Objectors to the application were known associates.

Councillor John Hardwick declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 8, application 201961 – Hartleton Farm; the applicant was a known associate.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2021.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2021 be approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Lead Development Manager provided an update on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and outlined a change to the procedure for the handling of applications to address the current backlog.

Proposed new dwelling.

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

The senior planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Ms D Clarke of Welsh Newton and Llanrothal Group Parish Council spoke on the application. Mrs S Parkinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ms H Boughton, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary she commented that the proposal had been revised following dismissal of an earlier application at an appeal hearing. There remained significant local objection to the proposal in the application from the local community. Welsh Newton Common was not considered to be a sustainable location for more housing. Access to the site along a narrow lane was a concern and a consultant had been commissioned by local objectors to make an assessment of the access road which had concluded that it was incompatible with the NPPF and sections of the Local Plan. Local objectors also felt that the development would be damaging to the character of Welsh Newton Common and did not feel that it provided the small affordable housing that had been originally envisaged for the plot. The proposed development was also felt to have a detrimental impact upon local protected species including dormice which would be in conflict with the local planning policy. If the committee was minded to agree the application it was encouraged to consider conditions to mitigate construction traffic impacts.

The committee discussed the application.

A motion that the application be refused, as it was not compliant with sustainable planning policies SS6, SS1, NT1, LD1, WNL4, WNL1 and WNLC1, was moved.

The Lead Development manager explained that Welsh Newton Common was an area in the core strategy identified for development. The local Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) included support for new development. The applicant had revised plans for the development based on the comments of the planning inspector following dismissal of the original application at appeal. It was confirmed that no objections had been received from statutory consultees. Concerns were expressed regarding the reasons for refusal contained in the motion which were not felt to be sustainable. It was highlighted that condition 15 contained a requirement for a construction management plan which would regulate the impact of construction on the common. Condition 22 could be enhanced to ensure that photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump would be integral to the build, consistent with the conditioning for an electric car charging point.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She explained that the development was not in a sustainable location. If the committee was minded to agree the application it was urged to consider conditions to protect the Common against the impacts of construction and to ensure the inclusion of environmentally sustainable facilities in the permission.

The motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Proposed development of two dwellings.

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

The senior planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Ms D Clarke of Welsh Newton and Llanrothal Group Parish Council spoke on the application. Mrs S Parkinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ms H Boughton, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member, Councillor Elissa Swinglehurst, spoke on the application. Local objectors had expressed concern Welsh Newton Common was not a sustainable location for development. Housing targets had been exceeded locally and the County had over a five-year land supply. The access road was not adequate and was incompatible with the NDP which required developments to be accessed from a ‘made-up’ road. The development proposed would be detrimental to the character of Welsh Newton Common and the application did not meet local need. The development would require the removal of hedges that were part of dormouse habitat, which was a protected species, and was therefore in conflict with planning policy.

The committee discussed the application.

A motion that the application be refused as it was not compliant with sustainable planning policies NPPF 175, WNL1, LD2, SS6, SS1 was moved.

The lead development manager explained that a previous application had been dismissed at appeal due to the section 106 agreement which had been missing; the inspector had been content with every other element of the proposal. Any refusal of the application would be difficult for the council to defend. The County had met the 5-year housing supply due to applications of this kind being approved.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She explained the application contained a proposal for two houses increasing road usage locally and accessed on a road which might not meet the requirement in the NDP to be ‘made up’. The application would have detrimental impacts on Welsh Newton Common and conditions were encouraged to mitigate any damage caused.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and lost.

A motion that the application be approved, subject to an amendment to condition 26, to include photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump, was moved and was carried.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions, the amendment to condition 26 as outlined above and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Proposed variation of condition 10 of planning permission SE1999/2612/F granted on appeal (reference: APP/W1850/A/00/1039625) for 22 holiday chalets with parking facilities – ‘original’ planning permission reference: SS980398PF) to explicitly detail the approved drawings at Hartleton Farm, Bromsash, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 7SB.

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

The principal planning officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr A Reeves of Linton Parish Council spoke on the application. Mr J Arrowsmith a local resident spoke in objection to the application. A statement from Mr D Baume, the applicant’s agent, in support of the application was read to the committee.

In accordance with the council's constitution the proxy local ward member spoke on the application. Councillor Yolande Watson queried why site visits had not taken place and why the legal opinion sought by the council regarding the application had not been shared. The absence of a site plan was raised and the discernible difference in the position of the access on the landscape plan from the permission granted. The inconsistency of planning permission references was raised as a concern. It was proposed that the applicant could be asked to submit another application. The committee was encouraged to refer to the submission from counsel, as commissioned by the local community. The work that had been undertaken on site was not considered to comply with section 73 (2) (b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which undermined the claim that permission was extant.

The committee debated the application.

The lead development manager explained that the need for a site visit was discussed with the chairman but it was not felt necessary as the decision to be made by the committee was a technicality. The principal planning officer explained that there was a discrepancy between the site access on the permission and on the Landscape plan. Once the Landscape plan had been accepted by the planning department the new access had superseded that contained in the permission. Counsel's advice had been sought on this matter and there was felt to be no issue.  Case law had established an objective test as to when development had commenced; works were deemed to have started on the site therefore the permission was extant. It was noted that conditions 1, 2 and 6 were are all compliance conditions that required development to be carried out in accordance with details concerning materials, landscape and drainage that were approved by letter dated 9th December 2003. The letter would be appended to the decision notice which would be sent to the applicant.

The proxy local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She urged the deferral of the application to allow the committee to undertake a site visit to see the scrapings that represented the commencement of development. The scrapings were not felt to be compliant with lawful material commencement contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A proper site plan was required which complied with condition 10 otherwise approval would be based on the landscape plan.

A motion that the application be approved was carried.