To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Graham Andrews and Johnson.

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

Councillor Bowen substituted for Councillor Graham Andrews and Councillor Swinglehurst for Councillor Johnson.

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.

Agenda item 9: Land adjoining Duke Street, Withington

Councillor Hardwick declared an other declarable interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 be approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Erection of a detached, single storey, three bedroomed agricultural workers dwelling.

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

(Erection of a detached, single storey, three bedroomed agricultural workers dwelling.The application was approved, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.)

(Councillor Bowen was unable to be present during all of the consideration of the application and accordingly did not vote upon it.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mrs Hooper, the applicant, made a submission by video in support of the application. This was played to the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Chowns, spoke on the application.  In summary, she commented that the case was exceptional and significant weight should be given to the particular circumstances and needs of the applicant’s family.  The existing accommodation on the site was not suitable.  A new build bungalow was essential. There had been no objections to the application.  Approval would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Core Strategy.

The Committee discussed the application.

It was proposed that the application should be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds that there were exceptional circumstances and the application would be of social benefit to the family and the whole community.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application needed to be considered solely on the basis of planning policy.  The application had been submitted on the basis that there was a need for an agricultural workers dwelling.  There was accommodation on site, permission for another dwelling on site and accommodation nearby that could meet that need.  The application therefore needed to be considered as an application for a dwelling in the open countryside.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She commented that there was no landscape harm and reiterated the absence of any objections and the exceptional needs of the family that could not be met by the existing accommodation or the extant permission for another dwelling.

A motion that the application should be approved on the grounds that there were exceptional circumstances that outweighed any harm was carried.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted on the grounds that there were exceptional circumstances that outweighed any harm, having regard to policy RA3 and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework, with a condition tying the property to use by the family, and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to issue the planning permission with any other conditions as considered necessary.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.00 am and 11.10 am)

Proposed conversion of and extension to the existing riverview flats building to form 6no. 2-bed apartments with new end staircores and additional storey above.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, except that the proposed ground 5 for refusal was removed.

(Proposed conversion of and extension to the existing riverview flats building to form 6no. 2-bed apartments with new end staircores and additional storey above.)

The Principal 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.

She highlighted that, as referred to in the schedule of updates, the officer recommendation had been amended, removing the fifth ground for refusal as set out in the published report relating to the proposed surface water drainage strategy.

.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mrs J Geyl, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the scheme, as a virtual attendee.  Mr M Andrews, the applicant’s architect, spoke in support of the application as a virtual attendee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Stark, spoke on the application.  In summary, he commented that the application would represent a significant improvement to a derelict building in the conservation area, noting the comments of Historic England on this latest iteration of the scheme, provide needed accommodation in the town centre, and cause less than substantial harm. The Town Council had no objection.  Whilst there were some objections, in particular from some nearby residents, there was evidence of broad local support.  He supported the application

The Committee discussed the application.

The Lead Development Manager commented that there was scope for a scheme of a higher quality of design better reflecting the local context to be provided.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that there was much local support for the proposal and would remove an eyesore that may otherwise remain for some time.  The scheme had benefits that outweighed the less than substantial harm. If the Committee was not minded to approve the application, deferral for a site visit would be preferable to refusing it.

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

1.               The proposal with its uncharacteristic scale, architectural form, and materiality and by virtue of the site’s location within the Ross Conservation Area has a detrimental impact upon nearby heritage assets, the character of the streetscape and the setting of the Conservation Area and fails to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the locality, one that forms a gateway and location to the historic market town of Ross on Wye and is located within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  As such the which would be contrary to Policies LD4, LD1, RW1 and SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the guidance found in Chapters 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The adverse impacts identified in this regard would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest social and economic benefits of the scheme, and the proposal would hence not be representative of sustainable development.

2.               The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Outline permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling, the erection of up to 3 x residential dwellings with associated drive and access alterations (all other matters reserved).

The Committee deferred consideration of this application pending a site visit.

(Outline permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling, the erection of up to 3 x residential dwellings with associated drive and access alterations (all other matters reserved).)

(Councillor Rone had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Dinedor Parish Council had submitted a written submission in objection to the application.  This was read to the meeting.   Mr J Lively, the applicant, spoke in support of the application as a virtual attendee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Summers, spoke on the application.  In summary, he expressed concerns about lack of infrastructure in the village, highway safety, drainage and flooding problems and conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  He requested that the Committee hold a site visit.

At the outset of the Committee’s discussion it was proposed that there should be a site visit.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Proposed improvements to existing field access and construction of farm track.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application pending a site visit.

(Proposed improvements to existing field access and construction of farm track.)

(Councillor Rone had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Paul Andrews fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Withington Group Parish Council had submitted a video in objection to the application.  This was played to the meeting.  Mr P Bainbridge, a local resident, submitted a written submission in objection to the application on behalf of himself and other residents.  This was read to the meeting.   Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application as a virtual attendee.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Paul Andrews, spoke on the application.  In summary, he expressed concerns about highway safety and the risk of flooding. He requested that the Committee hold a site visit.

At the outset of the Committee’s discussion it was proposed that there should be a site visit.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Date of next site inspection – 16 March 2021

Date of next meeting – 17 March 2021

Noted.