Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler and JA Hyde.

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

Councillor RJ Phillips substituted for Councillor CR Butler and Councillor J Stone for Councillor JA Hyde..

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

Agenda item 11: Land at Applewood House, Bridstow, Ross-on-Wye

Councillors PGH Cutter, J Hardwick and EJ Swinglehurst 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 28 October 2015.

In relation to Minute 93: 151189 – Land off Fernbank Road, Ross-on-Wye, a Member commented that it had been requested that the access into the paddock should be for agricultural use only.  The Development Manager confirmed that a sign would be erected at the turning circle to make clear that the access was only for agricultural access.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2015, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Clarification was sought as to why an appeal against non-determination had been lodged in relation to application 143609.  The Development Manager commented that the planning department had been awaiting responses from consultees.  The applicant had decided to go to appeal rather than await the outcome believing that offered them a greater chance of a successful outcome.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Proposed erection of two agricultural buildings, feed bins and associated development for pig rearing.

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

(Proposed erection of two agricultural buildings, feed bins and associated development for pig rearing.)

The Case 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 Hall, of Almeley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Crippin, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Clark, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         He invited the Development Manager to indicate on the slides on the screen where other buildings were situated in relation to the Scheme and commented on the distances involved.

·         Vehicles would be unable to use the junction by the church.

·         The applicant had been farming for a number of years, was settled in the community and was seeking to diversify the business.

·         The Council had approved a similar application some 4 kilometres away at Quebb, near Eardisley.  A 1900 pig unit at Wigmore had been approved in 2011.  He had visited both farms and outlined to the Committee how the operation worked.

·         The site at Wigmore used a passive ventilation system which worked well. There had been no dust emitted.

·         The main objections related to pollution, dust and smell.  He had been unable to detect smell or odour once over 50 metres away from the units.

·         The site was served by narrow lanes.  If the application were to be approved traffic should be required to avoid going through the village itself.

·         The waste management plan would be important.  Residents needed to be assured that with a waste management plan in place their amenity would not be affected.

·         He noted that the farm at Wigmore he had visited ran a successful bed and breakfast operation within 100 metres of the pig units.

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

·         Key issues were the odour from the site and the removal of waste.  If the site were to be approved a travel plan would be required that prevented any waste being transported through the village of Almeley.  The way in which dirty water from the site was to be managed also needed to be clearly prescribed.

·         In relation to odour, the response from the Environmental Health Officer had stated that it was not considered that the estimated level of odour would result in any significant loss of amenity.  The prevailing wind should blow odour away from the village.

·         The proposed development, which in scale equated to a factory, was simply too close to Almeley.

·         The proposal was not sustainable.  It potentially involved the transportation of a considerable amount of waste from the site requiring a large number of heavy vehicle movements along very narrow lanes.  The transportation of materials to the site would also involve a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Site for the erection of up to 89 dwellings including affordable housing. Construction of vehicular access and other associated works.

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

(Site for the erection of up to 89 dwellings including affordable housing, construction of vehicular access and other associated works.)

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 L Haskins, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He sought clarification on precisely what the Committee was being asked to determine because there appeared to some confusion in the documentation.  The Development Manager confirmed that the Committee was being asked to determine the principle of development and the means of access only.

On that basis the local ward member made the following principal comments:

·         He questioned whether the sewerage proposals were satisfactory and the capacity of Welsh Water’s facilities.

·         Drainage of the south-eastern part of the site itself was a concern as was drainage of surface water from the site as a whole.

·         There were doubts over the capacity of the water supply in the area.

·         The minimum number of houses required in the Golden Valley during the life of the Core Strategy was 54 dwellings taking account of recent permissions.  The proposal for up to 89 dwellings represented overdevelopment.

·         There was insufficient employment in the area, road infrastructure was poor and there was a lack of bus services.  Local schools were over capacity.

·         There was no funding in the draft S106 agreement for a necessary increase in the size of the community centre.

·         He expressed a number of reservations about the detail of the layout and design of the proposed development which he considered unacceptable.  He noted that these issues would need to be the subject of a separate application.

·         In conclusion, he was not opposed to the development subject to the concerns he had outlined being addressed.

The Development Manager commented that following an initial objection from Welsh Water the applicant had agreed to provide funding to enable Welsh Water to upgrade the Peterchurch Waste Water Treatment Works.  Reserved matters would be subject to discussion with the Parish Council, the local ward member and the Chairman of the Committee.

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

·         In principle the development appeared appropriate for the site and sustainable.

·         The Parish Council had commented constructively, appeared to have no objection in principle, and indicated support if the concerns they had identified could be addressed.  It was essential that they were fully consulted at the reserved matters stage.

·         It was to be hoped that the upgrade by Welsh Water would include the provision of phosphate strippers.

·         The proposed affordable housing needed to be integrated into the site.

·         Bus service provision needed to be addressed as part of the S106 agreement.

·         The development was too large and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Proposed erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and the erection of 1 no. new dwellinghouse within the curtilage.

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

(Proposed erection of a replacement dwellinghouse and the erection of 1 no. new dwellinghouse within the curtilage.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Barter, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

He began by reading a submission from Bartestree with Lugwardine Group Parish Council.  This reinforced the Parish Council’s support for the application, commenting on and challenging the conclusions in the report on transportation and the principle of development.

He then made the following principal comments:

·         The applicants were seeking to provide a bungalow for their elderly parents.

·         The access was the safest of the accesses to properties in the immediate area.  There was no record of any accident in the area.  The proposal would not generate any extra traffic.  There was already planning permission for the access to the existing property that was being redeveloped.

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

·         One view was that the national speed limit applied on this stretch of the A465 and the access was dangerous.  A contrary view was that the development would not change the current situation for which there was planning permission.

·         Some support was expressed for approving the development to enable the family to care for their elderly patients.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were 21 letters in support.

·         The Development Manager commented that the personal circumstances of the applicant were not a material consideration.  The correct approach if the aim was to provide care for relatives was to seek permission for an annex.  The current proposal was for two dwellings in the open countryside in an unsustainable location.

·         The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that the views expressed about transportation represented grounds for refusal and there was merit in enabling a family to care for elderly relatives.

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

1.         The application site is situated away from any public services or facilities and is considered an unsustainable location for new residential development. The proposed new dwelling fails to meet any of the criteria for permitting housing outside of settlements and is subsequently contrary to Policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed replacement dwelling is substantially larger than the existing bungalow. This form of intensification within a countryside setting is contrary to Policy RA3 of the Herefordshire Local Plan - Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         The intensification in the use of the vehicular access presents an unacceptable risk to highway safety, contrary to part 4 of Policy MT1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan -  Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.         The parking provision is in excess of Council standards, encouraging dependency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Proposed conversion of former pub function rooms into 6 self-contained apartments and external stair to north elevation.

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

(Proposed conversion of former pub function rooms into 6 self-contained apartments and external stair to north elevation.)

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Lee, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

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

·         The main concern appeared to relate to pressure on residents parking spaces in the locality.  It was acknowledged that this could not be regulated by a planning condition. 

·         Consideration also needed to be given to waste and recycling provision.  The Development Manager suggested that a condition could address this point.

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

1.         A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         H29 - Covered and secure cycle parking provision

3.         D02 - Approval of details:

A)        Detailed design of windows;

B)        Detailed design of staircases.

C)        Waste and Recycling Storage

4.         B02 - Development in accordance with approved plans and materials (Drawing nos. 2270-05, 2270-06 and 2270-07)

5.         I16 - Restriction of hours during construction

INFORMATIVES:

1.         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, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         N11C – General

3.         N11A – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – Birds

4.         ND02 – Area of Archaeological Importance

5.         W02 – Welsh Water rights of access

Proposed erection of one dwelling.

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

(Proposed erection of one dwelling.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Newton, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·         Referring to the foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework she questioned the merit of the development of a house in the front garden of an existing property with access off an unadopted road.

·         The Parish Council had objected to the proposal as had a number of local residents.

·         The proposal would have a negative impact on the amenity of existing properties contrary to relevant paragraphs of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.  It failed to meet points 1, 3 and 4 of the criteria for development set out in Policy RA2.  The proposal was also contrary to policies LD1 and SS6.

·         The development was inappropriate in the AONB.  Contrary to paragraph 64 of the NPPF it was out of poor design and did not improve the character of the area.

·         It was inappropriate development of a residential garden contrary to paragraph 53 of the NPPF.

·         The access via an unadopted road was very narrow with limited turning space.  An application for development on the site had been refused in 2007.

·         She had seen the sewer crossing the site.

·         If the Committee was minded to approve the application she requested that the established hedge should be retained as far as possible.

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

·         There had to be some concern that a sewer pipe did run underneath the property given Welsh Water’s comments about ensuring no detriment to Welsh Water’s assets.

·         The Transportation Manager had withdrawn his objection to the access in the light of an Inspector’s view expressed at an earlier appeal on an adjoining site.

·         If planning permission was granted permitted development rights should be removed.

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment to the detriment of neighbours.

·         Regard should be had to the grounds for objection advanced by the local ward member.

·         The development did not represent change for the better and was not appropriate within the AONB.

The Development Manager commented that the site did have constraints but formed part of an existing settlement.  The highway safety issues were not significant enough to warrant refusal.  If the application were to be approved he suggested that conditions should be added relating to slab levels, hedge maintenance and the removal of permitted development rights.

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

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions relating to slab levels, hedge maintenance, the removal of permitted development rights and the following conditions:

1.         A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 - Development in accordance with approved plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Date of next site inspection – 8 December 2015

Date of next meeting – 9 December 2015