Apologies were received from Councillors TM James, MD Lloyd-Hayes and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor PA Andrews substituted for Councillor TM James.

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.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2019.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to typographical corrections and publication with the minutes of the answer to the question raised at that meeting under chairperson’s announcements.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed residential development for seven dwellings and accesses.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation with amended conditions.

(Proposed residential development for seven dwellings and accesses.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 T Cramp, of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Slough, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs C Rawlings, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He stated that he had requested that the Committee consider the matter given the number of objections and strength of local feeling. The officer report was comprehensive.  The application and amendments to it had been under discussion since December 2017.  The principal objections had been outlined by the Parish Council and the local resident who had spoken to the meeting.

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

·        The amount of garden and amenity space proposed was to be welcomed.  The design was good.  The development was of low density.

·        Paragraph 6.46 of the report stated that the application complied with policy.

·        With regard to drainage concerns a comment was made that there was no indication that the application would lead to increased flooding.  The advice to the Committee was that drainage work would be accommodated on land within the applicant’s ownership.

It was also commented that the responses from the drainage engineer included in the report indicated that there had clearly been concerns about drainage with the proposals at one time having been considered unacceptable.  The final response from the drainage engineer recommending approval was dated 3 November 2018.  Reference had been made in the meeting to a more recent visit to the site by a drainage engineer and it was asked if there was any further information on this point.  The PPO stated that she was aware of that visit, had confirmed its purpose and that the drainage engineer did not intend to make any further representation.

·        It was requested that condition 15 be expanded to include a requirement to collect rain water.

·        The proposed passing bay would be a benefit.  A Member suggested that a second passing bay was required.

·        The development was close to the A465.

·        The Parish Council did not object to the principle of development on the site, but did object to the scale and density.

·        The PPO confirmed that Cobhall Lane should have been described in the report as an unclassified road rather than an unadopted one.

·        The social objective set out at paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework referred to fostering a well-designed and safe built environment with accessible services.  Clarification was sought as to what services were accessible from the settlement.

The PPO commented that Cobhall Common was identified in policy RA2 at table 4.15 as a settlement appropriate for sustainable growth.  There was good access to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Erection of 2 dwellings and associated garaging and revised vehicular access for planning approval 180075/F.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Erection of 2 dwellings and associated garaging and  revised vehicular access for planning approval 180075/F.)

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.

It was noted that, as reported in the update, Garway Parish Council had confirmed that they no longer objected to the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Joseph, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, was unable to attend the meeting.  The Chairperson read out a statement he had submitted.

The statement contained the following principal comments:

·        The only way for rural villages such as Garway to survive was to allow some development. Garway was identified as a settlement in the Core strategy.  It had a popular primary school, a public house and a garage. In many ways it was an excellent place for development.

·        His principal concern related to the type of house being proposed.  Garway needed affordable homes, for young families looking for their first property.  Whilst the application was for two semi-detached properties they were unlikely to be “affordable”. The five dwellings adjoining were larger and better described as ‘executive’.

·        The proposed development was outside the settlement boundary in the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan. The site was on the very edge of what might be considered Garway village.

·        In relation to landscaping he requested that conditions be applied to safeguard the stunning views particularly from the adjacent public right of way.

·        If the application had been for affordable houses he would not have requested that it be considered by the Committee.  He was concerned the proposal would encourage an increasingly aged population to move to the county’s rural villages.  That demographic was unlikely to support the local services that it was hoped to retain.

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

·        It was asked whether a footpath proposed on the site could be designated as a public right of way as recommended by the Ramblers Association at the end of their representations set out at paragraph 5.2 of the report.

The Development Manager commented that a public right of way existed and was not materially affected by the development.  However, whilst a condition would not be appropriate, the proposal in paragraph 5.2 could be explored with the applicant.

·        It was asked whether a mature sycamore tree referenced in the Conservation Manager (Arboraculturist’s) comments at paragraph 4.5 of the report could be protected with a tree preservation order.  Clarification was also sought on the future management of that area.

The Development Manager commented that granting planning permission would ensure some protection for the tree.  The possibility of a tree preservation order could be explored.

·        The proposal adjoined a previously approved scheme for five dwellings.

·        It was unfortunate that the developments did not include affordable housing as some of the representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Date of next site inspection – 9 April 2019

Date of next meeting – 10 April 2019

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.