Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, JW Hope MBE, MAF Hubbard and GR Swinford, 

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor TM James attended the meeting as a substitute Member for Councillor PA Andrews, Councillor AJW Powers substituted for Councillor Hubbard, and Councillor J Stone substituted for Councillor JW Hope.

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

Agenda item 7 Land South of Penrhos Farm, Lyonshall, Kington

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as director of a company which provided solar panels.  He confirmed that he had no association with the application.

Agenda 9: P141314/0 Land at Ryelands View, Kinsham, Presteigne, LDH 2HP

Councillor J Stone declared a non-pecuniary interest given his role as Vice Chairman of Council.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to amending minute no 23 to state that Mr K Bishop Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest, because his wife was Family Ministry Manager at St Paul’s Church Tupsley.

There were none.

Erection of 4 no. broiler buildings, agricultural storage building, 2 no. control rooms, 10 no. feed bins, hardstanding and access improvements and drainage attenuation pond.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with officers authorised to attach amended conditions as necessary.

(Erection of 4 no.Broiler buildings, agricultural storage building, 2 no. Control rooms, 10 no. Feed bins, hardstanding and access improvements and drainage attenuation pond.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  This included the design and layout of the poultry units together with associated infrastructure, including the storage building which would incorporate the biomass boiler noting its position and size.  Surrounding residential properties were identified including listed buildings.  Updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted comments from the Environment Agency included in the update that the odour assessment provided in the planning application (including the Environmental Statement) went beyond minimum guidance.  He also drew attention to noise issues as reported in the response from the EA and the recommendation as set out in the update to include an additional condition in respect of the slab level.  He commented that the Environment Agency had already issued a site permit, which covered issues such as odour, noise, dust and residential amenity, and that the permit was administered and monitored by the Agency.

It was noted that following a Judicial Review a decision to grant planning permission for this development at Penrhos Farm, taken under delegated powers, had been quashed (by Consent Order) in the High Court.  The matter had therefore been brought before the Committee for determination.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Smith, of Lyonshall Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mrs H Hamilton, an agent speaking on behalf of an objector, spoke in objection.  Mr R Williams, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RJ Phillips, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         The topography of the site and the impact on neighbouring properties were important considerations.

·         It was difficult to determine such applications.  He noted that 79 letters had been received in objection to the application and 78 had been received in support.

·         A number of factors had to be balanced: the contribution the development would make to the local economy; whilst people might not be comfortable with the method of farming it did provide an affordable supply of meat; and the impact on the amenity value of the area.

·         The site was in general discrete.  Penrhos Court, a listed building, was some distance away.  The site would, however, be in view of Penrhos House and he had sympathy with the objection of the resident.  He suggested that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, particular care was taken to ensure that proposed condition 11 set out in the recommendation in the agenda papers, relating to screening and landscaping, provided for enhanced landscaping to the north and north west of the site.

·         He also requested that the proposed condition 6, requiring a Manure and Site Management Plan, should provide that no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Proposed erection of 5 terraced houses and formation of parking.  

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with officers authorised, in consultation, to attach additional conditions.

(Proposed erection of 5 terraced houses and formation of parking.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  She added that following discussion with the local ward member and the applicant’s agent it was proposed to add conditions relating to the construction of a pedestrian railing at the end of the path by the roundabout where the A4103 joined the A480.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RI Mathews, the local ward member, spoke indicating support of the application.

He commented that the application site was identified for residential development in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.  He requested that the Committee consider attaching the following conditions: a requirement that there should be two additional parking spaces, to provide two parking places per dwelling; a requirement that materials used in constructing the dwellings should be consistent with those used in the existing dwellings to preserve the amenity of the area; and that a pedestrian railing should be installed at the end of the path by the roundabout where the A4103 joined the A480 to help to protect the safety pupils travelling to school.

There was consensus in support of the development with the proposed additional conditions, which it was proposed should be finalised in consultation with the local ward member.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, in particular conditions on additional parking spaces, materials used in constructing the dwellings and the provision of a pedestrian railing:

Proposed two bedroom bungalow.

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

(Proposed two bedroom bungalow.)

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.

The following principal points were made in debate:

·         Several Members considered that the application was for an “infill” building, which would be an improvement on the current structure it would replace, had no adverse impact and represented sustainable development which meant that there should be a presumption in favour of granting permission in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The development appeared to have a limited negative effect.  It was questioned why officers had recommended refusal when two subsequent applications on the agenda in Garway, which, on the face of it appeared to be similar “infills”, were recommended for approval.  Kinsham was slightly closer to amenities than Garway.  Under the draft Core Strategy there would have been a different recommendation.

·         The alternative view expressed was that, as set out in the report, the development was in open countryside and contrary to planning policy.

The Development Manager commented that the relevant polices the Committee should consider were the saved policies in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  Policy H6 – housing in smaller settlements identified Garway as a settlement where infill development could be considered.  Kinsham was not identified as such a settlement but as a group of dwellings in the open countryside to which a different policy applied.  If the draft Core Strategy were to be approved it was possible that infill development in Kinsham might be considered differently.  However, at the moment no weight could be attached to the draft core strategy.  Officers therefore had to give weight to the saved policies in the UDP and to the NPPF and had accordingly recommended refusal of the application.

The Legal Officer also stated that no weight could be given to the draft Core Strategy at this stage.  Material considerations included whether the development was sustainable in accordance with the NPPF.  The planning officers had concluded that on balance the development was not sustainable and had not therefore engaged the paragraph 14 balancing exercise.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary on the grounds that the development was sustainable in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVE

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proposed erection of a detached dwelling.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with officers authorised to finalise details in consultation.

(Proposed erection of a detached dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr N Holman and Mr W Padden, residents, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Norris, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He noted that the Parish Council’s reasons for objection to the Scheme had been addressed in discussion with the applicant.  He highlighted the following points raised by the owner of a neighbouring property: the Transportation Manager had stated that a whole hedgerow needed to be removed to provide the required visibility splay, the neighbour stated that this was in his ownership and he would not agree to its removal; the calculation of the impact the development would have on the neighbour’s level of daylight was questioned; and the development would adversely affect a neighbour’s soakaway requiring it to be relocated.

The Senior Planning Officer commented that he had no knowledge of debate over the ownership of the hedge, however, relevant ownership certificates had been submitted on application.  The planning consideration was that a visibility splay could be achieved .The location of the soakaway was not a planning consideration but a matter to be dealt with by building regulations.

It was proposed that the details should be finalised in discussion with the Chairman and local ward member.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 agreement  securing the removal of planning permission 130847/FH officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised, after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member, to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary

Proposed construction of a detached 4 bed dwelling and garage block containing artist studio.

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

(Proposed construction of a detached 4 bed dwelling and garage block containing artist studio.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Wildey the applicant spoke in support of the Scheme.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Norris, the local ward member, spoke and indicated his support of the application.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Proposed house with garage/workshop.

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

(Proposed house with garage/workshop.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Norris the local ward member, spoke and indicated his support for the application.

A question was asked about consistency in assessing the sustainability of developments.  The Development Manager commented that the development in Garway was development within a settlement, and was consistent with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  There were currently a number of locations defined as hamlets rather than settlements where development was accordingly not consistent with the UDP.  It was proposed in the draft Core Strategy that a number of hamlets would be reclassified as settlements where development could be considered.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Variation of Condition 15 on NC09/1820/O

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an additional informative.

(Variation of Condition 15 on NC09/1820/O to permit A1 use.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application identifying that the proposal related to one unit being used as a salon for hairdressing (A1 use) and two workshops (B1).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss R Collie, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Lester one of the local ward members, spoke on the application.

He complimented the Hope Family Centre on its work and commented that it had always been intended that the units in question would be developed as starter units.  The application would benefit local people and provide income to support the Centre.  He did not consider the proposal would adversely affect the town centre.

It was requested that an Informative be added to ensure there was effective management and control of the traffic using the centre.

The Development Manager noted the view that the development would not affect the viability of the town centre (A1) use.  He emphasised that it was proposed that the use of this unit was restricted to the provision of a hairdressing salon.  Without that restriction there was a greater potential for an impact on the town centre.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

2            The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to ensure effective management of the car parking area in the interest of highway safety and residential amenity.

Date of next site inspection -26 August 2014

Date of next meeting -27 August 2014