Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, 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 NE Shaw for Councillor EL Holton, Councillor J Stone for Councillor KS Guthrie, 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: 162556 – Land West of Eaton Hill, Leominster

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Leominster Town Council.

Erection of two poultry units, feed bins, widening of existing access, new access track and associated development.

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

(Erection of two poultry units, feed bins, widening of existing access, new access track and associated development.)

(Councillor J Stone was fulfilling the role of local ward member 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Barton of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms A Haydock, 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 members for relevant wards Councillors J M Bartlett and J Stone, spoke on the application.

Councillor Stone made the following principal comments:

·        He expressed concerns about highway safety, noting the objection made by Brightwells who had themselves been refused a comparable access onto the A49.  He was surprised that Highways England had no objection given the local traffic conditions.  He welcomed the clarification in the update of the condition to avoid right hand turns onto the A49 and the requirement for a traffic management plan.  He asked whether special markings could be put on the A49 and whether pedestrian safety on the public footpath was satisfactory.

·        He highlighted the other concerns expressed in representations made by Leominster Town Council and Kimbolton Parish Council, the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust, and the WoodlandTrust as referenced in the report.

·        The proposed development did fall within Flood Zones 2 and 3. It was essential that there was assurance that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective.  He referred to the Environment Agency’s comments on page 14 of the agenda papers that questioned in terms of a sequential approach whether the site was the most suitable location for the poultry units. 

·        Regard should also be had to the impact on West Eaton Nursing Home.

Councillor Bartlett made the following principal comments:

·        The site was clearly vulnerable to flooding.  Whilst some issues had been addressed many matters remained to be resolved. The proposal represented an unacceptable risk to the River Wye.  In accordance with paragraph 102 of the NPPF an exception test was required.  She considered that the requirement that wider sustainability benefits to the community should outweigh flood risk had not been met.

·        She referred to the provision in the Leominster Town Neighbourhood Development Plan, based on the County’s former Unitary Development Plan, seeking to regulate agricultural development and livestock farming with which she noted the proposal was in conflict.  The development was visually intrusive with an adverse impact.  Regard should also be had to the cumulative impact of such developments, noting the proposed development to the west of Baron’s Cross.

(note: the Lead Development Manager clarified that whilst the NDP had been signed off by Leominster Town Council with a view to it progressing to Regulation 16 stage the NDP Manager had confirmed by email during the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Proposed 3 no dwellings & garages.

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

(Proposed 3 no dwellings & garages.)

(Councillors James and Kenyon had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Baker was fulfilling the role of local ward member and accordingly had no 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 Roberts, of Thornbury Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr A Evans, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Edwyn Ralph was classified as an RA2 settlement.  Development was concentrated to the west and north of the B4214.  Land to the south east was considered to be of great landscape value.  He questioned the sustainability of the site, noting the distances to schools and shops and that there was 1 bus a month.

·        A previous application for 5 dwellings had been dismissed on appeal because of the impact on a listed building.  The current application for 3 dwellings would still have an impact.

·        There was a concern that anthrax infected cattle were buried on the site.  No detailed excavation had been undertaken.  It was therefore essential that an independent expert examination funded by the applicant be undertaken prior to any works disturbing the site.

In discussion a view was expressed that the proposal appeared to be infill but there was a question as to the need for 4 bedroom houses.  A view was also expressed that the proposal was not in keeping with the area.  Some surprise was also expressed that Edwyn Ralph had been classified as an RA2 settlement. It was noted that a public right of way diversion would be required

However, the principal concern related to the locally expressed view that there were anthrax infected cattle buried on the site.  The Lead Development Manager (LDM) commented that standard conditions relating to contaminated land set out in the recommendation would be modified to address the concern and prevent the ground being disturbed in advance of an assessment of the presence of anthrax being made.  He advised against a suggestion that consideration of the application should be deferred until an assessment had been carried out because of the risk of an appeal for non-determination and the award of costs against the council given that the previous inspector had accepted that conditions could cover this aspect.

The LDM added that the Core Strategy, in identifying Edwyn Ralph as an RA2 settlement allocated a minimum of 13 units to the settlement; to date 3 had been committed.  No housing needs survey had been undertaken to assess the type of dwellings required.

He confirmed that supported by the appeal decision on an earlier application on the site, development of the site could not be extended beyond  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Date of next site inspection – 31 October 2017

Date of next meeting – 1 November 2017