Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, EL Holton and WC Skelton.

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

None.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Agenda items 6 and 7: 182191 and 182347 – Lodge Farm, Monkton Farm Lane, Ocle Pychard

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes declared an other declarable interest because she knew some of the objectors.

Councillor FM Norman declared an other declarable interest because she knew some of the objectors.

Councillor AJW Powers declared an other declarable interest because he knew two of the public speakers.

Agenda item 8: 182775 – Land to the north of the Royal Arms, Llangrove

Mr K Bishop, Lead Development Manager declared an other declarable interest because the applicant’s agent had at one time worked for the authority’s planning department.

Agenda item 9: 172076 – Land adjacent to Herriot Cottage, Glewstone

Councillors Cutter, Hardwick and Swinglehurst declared other declarable interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Committee.

Councillor SD Williams declared an other declarable interest as he had at one time lived at Withingon.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 18 December 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meetings held on 18 December 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed erection of polytunnels for strawberry table top production and the necessary infrastructure, including internal farm access tracks, a sustainable drainage scheme with attenuation ponds, seasonal worker accommodation and facilities, fruit chiller, cold store and loading bay with landscaping and environmental enhancement measures.

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

(Proposed erection of polytunnels for strawberry table top production and the necessary infrastructure, including internal farm access tracks, a sustainable drainage scheme with attenuation ponds, seasonal worker accommodation and facilities, fruit chiller, cold store and loading bay with landscaping and environmental enhancement measures.)

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.

She highlighted a correction that the proposed polytunnels would cover 35.06 hectares rather than 37.02 hectares as set out in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Blackmore of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Williams spoke in objection on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and local residents.  Mr G Leeds, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor JG Lester, spoke on the application.  He made the following principal comments:

·        The applicant had held a comprehensive consultation event.

·        Polytunnels were a necessary part of modern soft fruit production.  The application did have economic benefits.  However, these had to be weighed against the negative impacts on the local community.

·        There had been 17 letters of support.  However, there had been objections from the Parish Council, two neighbouring parish councils, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, a petition, and over 200 individual letters of objection.  This demonstrated the local community was opposed to the application.

·        There was concern about the impact on the highway network.  The proposal would create 23 full time jobs and work for over 300 temporary workers.  Even though the applicant proposed to provide buses to transport agricultural workers to amenities there would be a significant impact on a narrow lane currently used by a few households.

·        The size and width of the polytunnels was considerable and would have a significant impact.  They would be in place for some 9 1/2 months.  They would use 30 hectares of farmland.

·        The Landscape Officer, as set out at paragraphs 4.6 and 6.53 of the report, had concluded that the impact of the development would not be significant.  This was based on the view that polytunnels and caravans were temporary in nature and could be removed.  However, a judgment on whether something was temporary or not should be based on how long it would be in place, not on how easy it was to remove it.  There was no time limit on the proposed operation.  Insufficient weight had been given to the adverse impact the Polytunnels would have on the environment.

·        In addition insufficient weight had been given to the impact of the presence of 330 seasonal workers whose accommodation was in proximity to existing residents.  However sound the management arrangements the applicant put in place there would be an impact.

·        The Ocle Pychard Neighbourhood Development Plan could be afforded significant weight.   The proposal was contrary to policy OPG1 and could not be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Proposed change of use of agricultural buildings to provide two units of farm managers accommodation, residential curtilage and parking.

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

(Proposed change of use of agricultural buildings to provide two units of farm managers accommodation, residential curtilage and parking.)

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 G Blackmore of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Leeds, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He noted that the Parish Council had expressed concern about potential conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  However, he considered that the proposal appeared to sit within Core Strategy policy RA5.  It represented good use of agricultural buildings for accommodation.  The objections received related to the overall development that had been the subject of the previous agenda item (application 182191). He had no objections in principle to the proposal.

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

·        The proposal was consistent with policy RA5.

·        It was proposed that in considering approval of the roofing material a condition should be added requiring the provision of bat tiles.

·        It was questioned whether the positioning of the mature landscaping proposed meant there was enough space for it to be implemented.  The PPO commented that officers would seek to ensure implementation in accordance with the plan accompanying the application.

·        It was questioned why the application had not been considered as part of application 182191, the subject of the previous agenda item.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the application was in accordance with Neighbourhood Development Plan policy OPG 2 and with Core Strategy policies RA3 and RA5. 

The PPO commented in relation to a suggestion that an agricultural tie should be imposed that condition 5 imposed restrictions on occupation of the dwelling.

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

Councillor Shaw proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation with the provision of bat tiles. The motion was carried with 12 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

5.         The occupation of the dwellings (unit A and Unit B) hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in the business occupying the buildings and land edged in blue on land ownership plan ref. OCLE PYCHARD PL-01 dated 24-05-18

            Reason: In order to conform with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, OPG13 of the Ocle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Proposed erection of five residential dwellings (C3) along with associated parking, roads, new highway access and associated infrastructure.

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

(Proposed erection of five residential dwellings (C3) along with associated parking, roads, new highway access and associated infrastructure.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A McRobb, of Llangarron Parish Council spoke on the Scheme.  Mr P Nottage, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, 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:

·        She acknowledged the efforts made by the applicant to seek to meet local concern.  However, local concern remained.

·        There had been 28 letters of objection.  She had received a phone call in support that she had been asked to bring to the committee’s notice.

·        There was local concern about the intensification of housing in the village reaching a point where it was starting to feel congested.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan had limited weight leading to frustration at the level of local control of development.

·        There was concern about the capacity of the road network, specifically the road from Llangarron to Whitchurch, noting the cumulative impact in conjunction with another development for 18 houses that already had approval.

·        Pedestrian safety within the village was an issue and she highlighted the Transportation Manager’s comments on the benefit of footway provision.

·        Concerns had been expressed about sewage treatment plant capacity.  She noted that Welsh Water had had no objection to the application.

·        There was also concern about surface water run-off from what was a sloping site.  The proposed mitigation was a balancing pond.  However, she had concerns about the outfall and the ongoing maintenance.

·        She highlighted the comments of the Conservation Manager at paragraph 4.4 of the report that the removal of a hedge to provide visibility splays would dramatically alter the character of the western end of the settlement, making the approach suburban in character and not reflective of Llangrove’s distinctiveness.

·        The owner of the Royal Arms public house adjoining the site had concern that the development would change its character, losing its unique selling point as a country pub.  There was also concern about disruption during the construction phase.  She hoped it would be possible to store and move material from one field to another within the applicant’s land holding avoiding having to use the road, so protecting the pub and the village from disruption.

·        There was a possibility that proximity of the development to the pub would lead to complaints from the new residents.

·        In order to provide the visibility splay the hedge could not be retained.  However, she requested that consideration be given to setting it back and replanting, with the footway internally to that, both to increase pedestrian safety and to connect to the open space and the village.

·        She endorsed the Parish Council’s request that the planting be as early as possible with trees as mature as it was feasible to use.

In the Committee’s discussion of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Site for proposed erection of nine dwellings. Construction of new vehicular access, turning area and private roads. Layout and construction of associated works.

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

(Site for proposed erection of nine dwellings. Construction of new vehicular access, turning area and private roads. Layout and construction of associated works.)

(Councillor James had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Cronshaw a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr S Barton, spoke in support on behalf of the applicant’s agent.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The application site was within the Wye Valley AONB.  As such it had to be considered under paragraph 172 of the NPPF and required great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape.  The proposal was contrary to paragraph 172 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies SS6 and LD1 and should be refused.

·        The Landscape Officer had commented that the proposal did not comply with LD1, referencing the engineering works to facilitate the access in conjunction with the loss of hedgerow.

·        There were landscaping schemes in mitigation.  The residual harm would have to be weighed against the scheme’s benefits.

·        Tranquillity and darkness were other aspects of an AONB that should be considered.  Consideration should be given to controlling any proposed use of passive infrared sensor lighting that would urbanise the area.

·        Glewstone was classified as an RA2 settlement despite completely lacking amenities (no bus service, no pub, no village hall, no church, no school).  She questioned if the proposal was compliant with SS7 which stated development should be in sustainable locations seeking to reduce the need to travel by car.  It appeared in conflict with RA2 (3) and SS4 which reflected this theme.  There was no public transport.  It was not safe to walk along the narrow lanes. It was not possible to cycle on the A40.  There was no alternative to travel by car to reach any services.  Much of Glewstone also lacked reasonable broadband access, a further issue of sustainability.

·        Objectors were concerned about the safety of schoolchildren waiting for the school bus at the crossroads.  A refuge had been offered in mitigation in response to views of the Area Engineer.  The local view was that this was not sufficient.

·        The site was in the AONB on rising ground and would have a landscape impact.  That had to be weighed against the benefits.  The mitigation would not offset the harm. 

·        If the Committee was minded to approve the application she requested that consideration should be given to the amenity and light of the neighbouring Herriot’s cottage at the reserved matters stage along with external lighting and sustainable design.

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

·        One view was that the site was in a hollow and the landscape impact on the AONB could be mitigated. A contrary view was that the proposal was intrusive in the AONB  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.