Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie, RL Mayo, TL Widdows, 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 NP Nenadich  attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor DB Wilcox and Councillor JLV Kenyon substituted for Councillor TL Widdows.

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

Agenda item 9: P141901/N Wall End Farm, Monkland, Leominster

Councillor AJM Blackshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 10: P143252/F Land adjoining Kingsleane, Kingsland, Leominster

Mr K Bishop, Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 10 December 2014.

It was noted in relation to Minute no 124 that a Member had requested that the policy relating to contributions to St Mary’s Roman Catholic Schools under S106 agreements should be reviewed.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 10 December 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman noted that the meeting would be the last to be attended by Kate Stevenson, Planning Lawyer, who was returning to Australia.  On behalf of the Committee he thanked Ms Stevenson and expressed his appreciation for her work and assistance in a difficult role.

Ms Stevenson thanked the Committee, expressing disappointment that she was leaving before the adoption of the Core Strategy, the absence of which she recognised had been a source of frustration for the Committee.

The Chairman also welcomed back Mrs R Jenman, Principal Planning Officer.

Site for 8 dwellings (all matters reserved).

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

(Site for 8 dwellings (all matters reserved.))

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 W Jackson, Chairman of Humber, Ford and Stoke Prior Group Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr C Saxon, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs H Howie, 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 JW Millar spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

The site was not one that the village would have chosen for development.

The main concern for both him and the Parish Council was the management of drainage and the flood risk.  Ten out of fifteen of the letters making representations about the development related to flooding.

Surface water run-off ran downhill from the site’s location meeting the stream known as the Prill flooding the centre of the village and making the road impassable.  Ten properties in that location relied on a biodisc system and this was damaged by the flooding.  This had occurred three times in the past year.   The application stated there was the potential to retain water on the site but this did not address surface water run-off.  There needed to be clarity as to whether the proposals would help alleviate flooding or would exacerbate it.

He acknowledged, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, that there were a number of grounds for granting outline planning permission.   If that decision were made conditions must require a full drainage survey to be undertaken to demonstrate that the system the applicant proposed to provide was indeed robust.

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

The potential for flooding was clear.  It was important that assurance was provided that the proposed measures to manage flooding were appropriate. Conditions 13 and 14 should be given particular attention.

It was observed that trees and hedgerows could contribute greatly to alleviating flooding.

As there was no longer a bus service it was asked if monies which might have been allocated for a bus shelter could instead be allocated to measures to relieve flooding.

The reduction in the number of properties proposed on the site from 14 to 8, 3 of which were to be affordable housing, was welcomed. The provision of these homes including some affordable housing could provide some betterment for the village.

Weight should be given to the view of the Parish Council.

The development was opportunistic.  It also offered nothing, by way of good quality building, for example, to encourage support for the application.  If the development proceeded the developer should be requested to take note of the comments of the Conservation Manager on design of the dwellings to ensure that they were sympathetic to the character of the local area.

It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Erection of three storey sheltered accommodation block with associated parking and landscaping.

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

(Erection of three storey sheltered accommodation block with associated parking and landscaping.)

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  Ms K la Tsar, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor P Rone, one of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.  He indicated support for the scheme which would meet a local need and was in a sustainable location.  Concerns over the loss of parking spaces as a result of the development had been addressed.  The development was a good example of joint working between the Council and West Mercia Housing and should be supported.

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

The application met a local need, was in the correct location and would represent an improvement to the area.

The loss of parking would cause some difficulties.  It was requested that future consideration be given to the feasibility of a residents parking scheme.  Provision of cycle storage should also be encouraged.

It was requested that the applicant explore the scope for energy efficiency measures and that the design was of good quality.

It was noted that the design of the scheme had taken account of the potential for flooding that had been identified.

A view was expressed that the flood alleviation scheme would protect the development and it would not be at risk of flooding as suggested by the Environment Agency.  A contrary view was expressed accepting the Agency’s opinion that the site would at some point flood, noting also that the flood alleviation scheme relied in part on demountable barriers.  It was suggested that it was important in supporting the scheme that the Committee acknowledged that it was making a compromise.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comments.

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

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

5.         G15 Landscape maintenance arrangements

6.         H06 Vehicular access construction

7.         H08 Access closure

8.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

9.         I51 Details of slab levels

10.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

11.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

12.       Surface water discharges shall only be permitted to discharge to the public combined sewerage system at an attenuated rate of 3 litres per second using a suitable flow control device.

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment in accordance with the requirements of policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Proposed agricultural anaerobic digester (AD) plant for farm diversification and production of renewable energy.

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

(Proposed agricultural anaerobic digester plant for farm diversification and production of renewable energy.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Weatherhead, of Monkland and Stretford Parish Council, spoke on the Scheme.  Mr R Ebrey, a former resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

At a public meeting there had been opposition to the proposal.  Concerns about the digester itself had been assuaged.  However, objections remained about the transport and access.

The applicant appeared to have developed a one way system around the village which involved crossing Monkland Common, to its detriment.  There were also concerns about the safety of riders, cyclists and walkers using the common.  Two tractors would be unable to pass one another.

There were other potential accesses off the A4110 and the A44 which would be preferable.

The condition requiring a traffic management plan was welcome.

There was concern that the road was already in constant use by the applicant at all hours and that the proposal would lead to a further increase in traffic.

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

Concern was expressed about the level of training provided for tractor drivers and it was suggested that there would inevitably be traffic problems.

It was questioned whether a traffic management plan could be enforced.  The applicant’s delay in producing a traffic management plan was a cause for concern.

In response to a suggestion that determination of the application should be deferred pending production of a traffic management plan the Planning Lawyer drew attention to proposed condition no 3 which meant that permission could not be granted until such a plan was in place.

A Member questioned the calculations relating to land use used in support of the application.  He also suggested that only a limited number of digesters in the County was sustainable.  If there were too many digesters this would be detrimental to the agricultural economy.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that thirteen anaerobic digesters had been approved to date.  It was not for the planning system to judge what was grown by farmers.  The land available to the applicant would vary over time depending on leases and other factors.

It was suggested that the regulation of digesters was a policy issue to which consideration should be given.

There would be an adverse impact on Monkland Common.

The proposal was another example of industrial farming which would damage the landscape and habitat.

It was regrettable that food crops were to be used to provide fuel.

Attention was drawn to paragraph 6.7 of the report addressing the principle of the development and its sustainability noting that the plant would generate sufficient power to meet the demand of over 1,000 households.  The proposal represented sensible farm diversification.

There had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Proposed development of 12 nos. dwellings, consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market. Works to include new road and landscaping.

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

(Proposed development of 12 nos. dwellings, consisting of 4 nos. affordable and 8 nos. open market.Works to include new road and landscaping.)

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.

He commented that the Committee had refused a previous application on 25 June 2014.  The new application before the Committee sought to address the grounds for that previous refusal

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs S Sharp-Smith a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs W Schenke, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He commented on a number of issues including:

The proposed development was outside the settlement  boundary and within a conservation area. 

The applicant had taken note of the grounds for the previous refusal and the revised scheme was an improvement.  The retention of hedges in the management of the applicant was welcome.

The Conservation Officer (Landscape) had raised objections to the development.

The draft Neighbourhood Plan proposed there should be no development in the proposed location.  He suggested that the Plan could be given some weight noting the legal opinion that had been received as referred to in the Committee update.

At an open day most people had objected to the proposal.

The number of houses recently built in Kingsland had already nearly met the target for growth in the draft core strategy.

The development did not conserve and enhance the conservation area.

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

The development was opportunistic.

It was questioned whether the provision of 2 bedroom affordable housing met the need.  The Development Manager commented that the provision met the requirements of the Council’s housing team.

The development was a good example of negotiations resulting in an improved scheme.

The grounds on which the application had previously been refused remained valid. It was detrimental to the Conservation Area.  The Parish Council and the draft Neighbourhood Plan wanted to protect the village boundary.  The development would be detrimental to the character of the area.

It was questioned whether the scheme had demonstrated a sufficient improvement on the previous proposal. 

The development would begin the process of merging two communities, something that the Committee had opposed in other locations. 

The objections by the Conservation Officer (Landscape) remained valid.

Note should be taken of the Parish Council’s opposition to the development.

The Development Manager noted the additional letters of support for the development referred to in the update.  He commented that the legal opinion referred to in the Committee update was correct in that in the case it referred to the fact was that the  Neighbourhood Plan was a material consideration and the Secretary of State had dismissed an appeal against refusal of planning permission in giving weight to a Neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.