Apologies were received from Councillors EL Holton, AJW Powers, A Seldon and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor EPJ Harvey substituted for Councillor AJW Powers, Councillor D Summers for Councillor A Seldon and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

Agenda item 7: 163391 – Bowling Green Farm, Clehonger

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

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

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew one of the public speakers.

Agenda item 9: 172420 – Land adjacent to the Old Chapel, Tillington

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2017.

A member questioned the accuracy of the minutes on the grounds that they did not precisely reflect a recording of the meeting in relation to the wording of one of the resolutions.

It was advised that the resolution in question, where an application had been approved contrary to the printed officer recommendation, chiefly reflected the intent of the committee that the application be approved and provided a mechanism to give practical effect to the approval in accordance with established practice.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Proposed erection of four poultry units, feed bins, service building, alterations to existing access and associated development.

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

(Proposed erection of four poultry units, feed bins, service building, alterations to existing access and associated development.)

(Councillor SD Williams was fulfilling the local ward member role and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 elaborated on the proposed additional conditions set out in the update.

The Chairman had permitted additional time to be allocated for public speaking.  In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Protherough, of Clehonger Parish Council and Mr T Cramp of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Griffiths, a local resident, and Mrs S Woosnam, representing Clehonger and Allensmore Parish Council, spoke in objection.  Mr G Clark, the applicant’s agent, and Mr P Whittal, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward members, Councillors JF Johnson and SD Williams spoke on the application. (The vast majority of the development was in Councillor Johnson’s ward, the access being in Councillor Williams’ ward.

Councillor Johnson made the following principal comments:

·        The application had clearly generated considerable emotion and the aim had to be to seek to strike a balance.

·        The site was located well down in the valley and work had been done to mitigate the landscape impact.

·        It would be important to ensure that the concerns about the impact on the environment including those associated with waste and odour were managed in accordance with the relevant policies.

·        His biggest concern was about flooding.  There was an existing flood risk to the A465 downfield from the site, attributed to a culvert that was considered to be of insufficient capacity.  He would pursue this issue whether or not the application was approved.

·        The access to the east to Clehonger had also generated comment and there was concern about speeding vehicles and a blind corner.  However, he considered that the proposed work on the access would make the road safer. He had had many conversations about implementing Traffic Regulation Orders.  However, there had been no recorded accidents on that stretch of road so the police would not support them.

·        The site was relatively close to Cargill’s where the chickens would be processed.  The proposal would generate jobs for local businesses.

Councillor Williams referenced the concerns expressed by Clehonger Parish Council about the application.  Whilst visibility to the east was fine, to the west it was restricted. 

(The meeting adjourned between 11.05-11.10)

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

·        The proposed highways mitigation was broadly acceptable.  It was asked whether there could be a sign cautioning drivers about the business operation and the road marked with the word “slow”.

·        The site’s location in a dip was acceptable and the landscaping proposals would provide further mitigation.

·        Conditions addressed flooding and surface water run off.

·        Herefordshire was an agricultural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Site for the proposed erection of up to 10 dwellings with garages and construction of access road (in lieu of planning permission 151315 on adjacent site).

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

(Site for the proposed erection of up to 10 dwellings with garages and construction of access road (in lieu of planning permission 151315 on adjacent site.)

(Councillor Greenow had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Guthrie was fulfilling the role of local ward member and accordingly did not vote on this application.)

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 D Hamilton, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr N Williams, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        She expressed particular concern about the access to the site off the A49.  Accidents that did occur often did not involve injury and were not recorded and there were also a number of near misses.  Nonethless Highways England had no objection and a recent speed review had concluded that there was no safety issue and there were no plans to reduce the speed limit.  She considered that signage for the junction should be provided but there was no indication that Highways England would be willing to do so.  She highlighted the cumulative impact of increased traffic on the A49 generally.

·        She noted that the application was intended to replace a permission previously granted for 9 houses elsewhere on the site.  She sought assurance that only one development would proceed.  Two developments would exacerbate the traffic issues still further.

·        The proposal would lead to a loss of amenity and privacy for existing residents, a loss of a green space and wildlife habitat.

·        There were concerns about pedestrian and cyclist safety.

·        She referred to the comments of the Conservation Officer (landscape) at paragraph 4.5 of the report that the quality of treatment of the site boundaries was varied,   She considered that if the application were to be approved additional tree planting should be required on the eastern boundary to protect the privacy of properties on St Peter’s Close.

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

·        The Committee had previously approved a development of 9 houses on the adjoining site.  Highways England continued to have no objection.  There did not appear to be any grounds for refusing the application.

·        Some misgivings were expressed about Highways England’s stance.  It was suggested that in any event that body should extend the 50mph speed limit to include the access point.  If not there should be additional signage to warn motorists.  It was noted that there was no waiting lane for stationary traffic seeking to turn into the access.

·        The proposal was that the properties would be self–build.  This raised questions of uniformity of design.  Development would also be likely to take longer.  It was therefore asked whether the section 106 development authorising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Proposed single storey dwelling.

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

(Councillors Greenow and Guthrie had left the meeting and were 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, Mrs A Tyler, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor WLS Bowen fulfilled the role of local ward member on behalf of Councillor WPC Crockett and spoke on the application in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was a small dwelling within Tillington and Tillington Common.  The site was sustainable with 6 bus services every weekday and 5 on weekends.  The road was wide and open with a 30mph speed limit.  There were some verges and these were safe with no hedges to obstruct the view.  The village had plentiful facilities. 

·        He suggested the proposal could be considered under policy RA2 as a location where sustainable housing growth would be supported rather than RA3 as argued in the report.

·        The proposed dwelling itself was sustainable and was an interesting design that met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  It would provide a good addition to the County’s housing stock.

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

·        Clarification was sought as to why the report classified Tillington as an RA2 settlement not Tillington Common.  It was suggested there was a possible anomaly in that the Rural Settlement hierarchy background paper showed that Tilington Common had been assessed as a sustainable settlement, not Tillington.

     The Lead Development Manager commented that Tillington and Tillington Common were two distinct settlements.  The Burghill Neighbourhood Development Plan, which was at Regulation 16 stage referred to them as separate areas and defined Tillington Common as being in open countryside with no settlement boundary around it.  The Core Strategy identified Tillington, not Tillington Common, as an RA2 settlement.

·        In addition to considering the application to be a good application representing sustainable development with other existing buildings around the plot some members considered that the application met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  Others considered the application to have merit and to be sustainable but not to fulfil the requirements of paragraph 55 and, as the area was not defined in policy RA2, and did not meet the criteria in policy RA3 it therefore represented development in the open countryside and approval would be contrary to policy.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that having regard to appeal decisions the proposal could not be considered to meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  The planning authority required an applicant to commission a recognised body at their own cost to undertake a peer review to support a case that an application met the paragraph 55 requirements.  No such review had taken place to support this application.  The proposal was a good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.