Apologies were received from Councillors EMK Chave, JG Lester, RL Mayo, and DB Wilcox.

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 MD Lloyd-Hayes attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor EMK Chave and Councillor NP Nenadich substituted for Councillor DB Wilcox.

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

Agenda item 7: P140953/F Homme Farm, Hom Green, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 7TF

Councillors PGH Cutter, BA Durkin and J Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.  Councillor J Hardwick also declared that he knew the applicant.

Councillor DW Greenow declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 8: P140963/O Land at 144 Aylestone Hill, and land to the east of Aylestone Hill, Hereford

Councillor DW Greenow declared a pecuniary interest because he had rented the land and had grazing dealings with Herefordshire Nature Trust.  He left the meeting during consideration of this item.

Councillor NP Nenadich declared a non-pecuniary interest because he chaired the United in the Community Trust which had an interest in using Aylestone Park for a training and playing facility.

Agenda item 11:  P140164/F Truffles, 46 High Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire

Councillors PGH Cutter, BA Durkin and J Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee. 

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 August 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 August be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor PJ McCaull as a new member of the Committee.

It was noted that an application refused by the Committee had been allowed on appeal and costs awarded against the Council.  It was requested that where this occurred more detail was provided to the Committee on the Planning Inspector’s reasoning to inform future decision making.

The Development Manager commented that in the case of the application referred to the Planning Inspector had concluded that the grounds the Committee had advanced for refusal were not sustainable.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Variation of Conditions 1(A), 1(C), 1(D) and 2 of DCSE2008/0996/F.

Authority was delegated to officers to approve the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to the Secretary of State providing authorisation and removing an article 25 holding direction.

(Variation of Conditions 1(A), 1(C), 1(D) and 2 of DCSE2008/0996/F)

The Legal Officer informed the Committee that within the 24 hours prior to the meeting the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had issued an article 25 holding direction.  This meant that the Committee could not take a final decision on the application before it.  Any decision would be subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State.  However, the Committee could consider the matter and officers now recommended that authority be delegated to officers to approve the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, subject to the Secretary of State providing authorisation and removing the holding direction.

She added that no detailed reasons had been provided for why the holding direction had been issued.  The letter had stated that the direction had been issued to enable the Department to have a further period in which to consider the proposal.

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 emphasised the proposal did not fall within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.  The application was for the modification of the extant permission.  It did not require consideration of the entire scheme, only the variation itself.  The principle of such development at this particular site, being within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was established.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs V Morgan (Campaign to Protect Rural England) spoke in objection to the application.  Mr E Drummond, the applicant spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member, spoke on the application indicating his support.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         Planning Permission had already been granted for the use of Polytunnels on the site, following a legal challenge.  The Committee was therefore only being asked to consider the removal of certain conditions and the effect of their removal.

·         The application proposed that a smaller, fixed, area should be allocated for cultivation.  This would save both the Council and the applicant time and money. 

·         The business, which generated up to £20m for the economy of Ross-on-Wye and the surrounding area, needed significant investment and therefore the applicant required certainty, with removal of the current time limit on the development.

·         Many organisations including the AONB Officer, Natural England and Walford Parish Council supported the application considering that there were benefits and the application represented an improvement on the current situation.

·         The applicant had been an exemplar and been responsive to feedback from neighbours.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about granting permanent permission for the polytunnels noting that the site was within the AONB.  It was suggested that a Planning Inspector had recently allowed an appeal permitting the use of polytunnels on another site within the Wye Valley AONB on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Site for the development of up to 135 homes (including 46 affordable homes), public open space, new access (including demolition of 144 Aylestone Hill).  Structural landscaping, sustainable drainage including balancing ponds and infrastructure and associated works.

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

(Site for the development of up to 135 homes (including 46 affordable homes), public open space, new access (including demolition of 144 Aylestone Hill).  Structural landscaping, sustainable drainage including balancing ponds and infrastructure and associated works.)

(Councillor DW Greenow left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J O’Donnell, a resident, presented a statement on behalf of Herefordshire Nature Trust.  Mr B Stephenson, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He supported the application although his fellow ward member had reservations about it. 

·         The applicant had provided reports that addressed his initial concerns and with regard to some of the environmental issues the scheme could provide betterment.

·         The scheme included much needed provision for 2 bed bungalows.

·         The size of the development was significant but the developer proposed to provide green space and an acceptable distance between properties.

·         The City needed additional housing to generate economic growth.

·         The site had an historical value and the development would have some adverse impact but on balance he considered it had merit.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Attention was drawn to the detailed comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) and their view that planning permission should be refused.  The Conservation Manager had expressed concern about the reliance placed on vegetation in the longer-term for screening in order to mitigate adverse visual (and landscape) effects.

·         The site was a sensitive location on the City boundary.  The City Council had sought to protect the open aspect to the Lugg meadows.

·         The Scheme had no regard to the sustainable building code and the need to reduce energy bills.

·         The size of the development was of concern.  The area would be compromised by the development.

·         One Member noted that the statutory consultees had no objection to the proposal.  Another highlighted, in contrast, the reservations expressed by local bodies and the Conservation Manager (Landscape).

·         It was requested that wildlife corridors be protected.

·         Clarification was sought on the arrangements for the maintenance of the frontage to the Lugg Meadows.  The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the provisions in paragraph 6 of the draft heads of terms appended to the report.  Some Members expressed concern about the robustness of these provisions.  The Development Manager commented that it would be problematic to seek to go beyond standard statutory provisions.

·         A development of the size proposed could not be wholly screened by landscaping works.

·         The site would not have been considered for development if it had not been for the absence of a 5 year housing land supply.

·         The Conservation Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Site for the erection of 16 nos. dwellings.

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

(Site for the erection of 16 nos dwellings.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Fraser of Marden Parish Council spoke in support/opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Collins, a resident, spoke in objection.  

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

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         In principle she supported development in the area in question.  However, this should have regard to the wishes of the local community.  The proposed development of 16 dwellings was inappropriate for the area.  A currently undetermined application for the development of five bungalows on the site for older / disabled people would be more acceptable.

·         There were concerns about the access to the site, the potential effect on an historic bridge and provision for parking.  The access road was also susceptible to flooding.

·         Surface water run-off from the development which might contribute to flooding within other villages in the locality needed to be properly managed.

·         The indicative plan suggested that some existing properties would be overlooked.

·         Consideration should be given to a more appropriate form of development with a better layout that would be more in keeping with the character of the village of Marden and had regard to the concerns raised by Marden Parish Council and others who had made representations.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The proposed development would be built over a public right of way.  It was noted that a solution to this had not yet been provided.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the matter had been raised with the Public Rights of Way (PROW) team but an application for a footpath diversion could not be made until the layout of the site was finalised.  The PROW team would have to address the matter in due course.

·         The issue of safe pedestrian access to Marden village remained unresolved.

·         The Development Manager commented that the application was for outline planning permission with all matters reserved.  He noted that Welsh Water had made no objection regarding drainage.  A suitable scheme regarding surface water drainage would need to be brought forward.

·         It was requested that at the detailed design stage consideration should be given to ensuring suitable building code levels.

·         The site had potential for development, however, good layout and design was essential.

·         There was a concern that a number of matters remained to be clarified and that officers should progress their resolution in consultation with the Chairman.

The Development Manager considered that there was scope to improve the scheme considerably.  He suggested that if permission were granted a note should be attached to the permission advising the applicants of the Committee’s view that improvement was required at the detailed design stage.

The local ward member was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Outline proposal for the erection of 60 dwellings (including 21 affordable houses) and a change of use of land to form community open space.

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

(Outline proposal for the erection of 60 dwellings (including 21 affordable houses) and a change of use of land to form community open space.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs W Soilleaux, Chair of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Snowdon, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr B Eacock, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         In his presentation the Principal Planning Officer had indicated the number of current applications for housing development within Bartestree and Lugwardine.  The amount of proposed development was unsustainable.

·         Officers acknowledged in the update issued to the Committee that “the development would fundamentally alter the character of this part of the settlement.”

·         The proposed development was close to Grade 11 listed building and would remove an area of parkland in the heart of a rural village.

·         The development would represent over half of the planned growth for Bartestree and Lugwardine within the lifetime of the emerging Hereford Local Plan to 2031.

·         A substantial amount of mature hedgerow would be removed which it would take a considerable time to replace.

·         The proposed footpath did not reach to the village shop discouraging pedestrians from using the store and raising concern about pedestrian safety.  This was not sustainable development.

·         The Parish Council was working hard to develop a Neighbourhood Plan.  A number of sites had been identified where small pockets of development could be accommodated within the village and where the new residents would be able to participate in village life. 

·         The development would not be countenanced if it were not for the absence of a five year housing land supply.

·         There were a number of grounds for refusing the application including: the impact on landscape character and heritage assets, and pedestrian safety.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         It was important that local communities determined their future.  The views of the Parish Council and the local ward member in opposing the scheme should be given weight.

·         The absence of a five year supply of housing land was placing pressure on the Committee to grant permission for development where in other circumstances it would not approve development.

·         Officers had acknowledged that the development would fundamentally alter the character of this rural village.  There were alternative sites within the village where small developments that were in keeping with the village’s character could be accommodated.

·         The site had been identified for housing within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.  However, the landscape value of the site was high and the effect on the setting and open space, including unregistered parkland, was significant.

·         The scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Proposed change of use from A1 use to mixed A1 & A3 use.

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

(Proposed change of use from A1 use to mixed A1 & A3 use.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

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

Informative:

Date of next site inspection – 16 September 2014

Date of next meeting – 17 September 2014