Apologies were received from Councillors CR Butler, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, EL Holton, TM James, 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 AW Johnson substituted for Councillor CR Butler, Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes for Councillor A Seldon, Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor KS Guthrie and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

None.

None.

Proposed erection of agricultural buildings, associated infrastructure and landscaping to support a new agricultural enterprise.

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

(Proposed erection of agricultural buildings, associated infrastructure and landscaping to support a new agricultural enterprise.)

(Councillor Johnson left the meeting during consideration of this application.) 

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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, Dr S Grant, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tucker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        A previous application on a nearby location had been withdrawn principally because it had been considered that it would have an adverse landscape impact.  The site now proposed, although lower in the skyline was on top of a hill and would itself have an adverse landscape impact.  It overlooked the Malvern Hills AONB.  Account also needed to be taken of the height of the proposed buildings which were quite large. The proposal was contrary to policy LD1.

·        Access was off a very narrow lane.  The proposal would generate additional traffic.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy SD1.

·        There was a better alternative site within the applicant’s landholding.

·        The proposal would require considerable amounts of water for the livestock and it was not clear where this would be obtained from.  There was concern about water run-off and the release of nitrates. The proposal was contrary to policies SD3 and SD4. 

·        It was contrary to policy RA6.  The development was not commensurate with its location and se?ting, caused unacceptable adverse impacts to the amenity of nearby residents by generated traffic movements that could not safely be accommodated within the local road network; and undermined the achievement of water quality targets in accordance with Policies SD3 and SD4.

·        He questioned the nature of the proposed farming business and whether it would bring benefits.

·        The Parish Council and local residents objected to the proposal..

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

·        In reply to questions the SPO commented that Welsh Water had not been a consultee as there was currently no water supply.  As indicated in the update the applicant intended to create a mains water connection.  No water was to be taken from the existing supplies on the hillside provided by an aquifer and borehole.

The Development Manager added that the County Land Agent considered the scale of the buildings to be appropriate for the proposed operation.  In respect of the specific policies relevant to the application the relevant Neighbourhood Development Plan policies could be given significant weight.

It was noted that the proposal was in the Severn catchment area.

There had been no objections from Natural England, the Conservation Officer (Landscapes, Ecology), Transportation Manager and the Drainage Manager.  The County Land Agent endorsed the proposal. Whilst the concerns expressed by the local resident who had spoken at the meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Proposed erection of temporary agricultural workers dwelling with associated parking and residential curtilage.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an additional condition as set out in the committee update.

(Proposed erection of temporary agricultural workers dwelling with associated parking and residential curtilage.)

(Councillor Edwards and Councillor Johnson 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.  He noted the interrelationship with the previous agenda item – application 173477.  He confirmed that the site was not within an AONB and there were no designated heritage assets on the adjoining site.  He reported that the Neighbourhood Development Plan could be given moderate weight.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr W Grant, local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tucker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor BA Durkin, spoke on the application.  He referred to the comments he had made on the previous agenda item - application 173477.  He sought clarification on the temporary status of the proposed dwelling, the report noting that the applicants intended to replace it with a permanent dwelling after 3 years, and assurance that it would be an agricultural tied dwelling and would not become a house available for disposal on the open market.

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

·        The Development Manager commented that the conditions on the application for a temporary dwelling restricted occupancy to an agricultural worker.  Any future application would be considered based on an assessment of the long term viability of the business and if a permanent permission was considered acceptable a s106 agreement could be made tying the occupancy to an agricultural worker and to the holding in accordance with policy RA4. In relation to a possible extension of the three year period to assess viability, he added that this could be considered.  However, a 3 year period was a well-established period for assessing viability.  The applicant could also apply for an extended period.

·        Whilst there was a concern that the development appeared to be a more substantial dwelling than was often provided in such cases it appeared to be modest and in keeping.

·        Clarification was sought on the fact that the applicant did have a cottage in his ownership on the landholding that could accommodate an agricultural worker.  It was suggested that he could have submitted an application for the buildings the subject of application 173466 to be closer to that house rather than seeking to create another house in this remote location, the justification for which was that the agricultural worker had to be in proximity to those buildings.

The SPO commented that in relation to the cottage that the applicant had made a separate application for a replacement dwelling to which the existing dwelling, an unlisted heritage asset, would be an annex. 

He added that condition 14 provided that if the holding proved to be unviable the temporary dwelling would have to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Proposed new 3 bedroom, single storey, eco-fully-accessible house.

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

(Proposed new 3 bedroom, single storey, eco-fully-accessible house.)

(Councillors Edwards and Johnson 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, Mr W Meynell, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the scheme.

There was general support for the application as an exceptional, energy efficient sustainable dwelling, with a good setting in the landscape.

An observation was made that that the application had not been subject to peer review as required by paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  However, the setting was not isolated, the proposal was sustainable and the exceptional design and concept weighed in favour of this particular application.

Councillor Norman proposed and Councillor Powers seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

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

1.         A01 - Time Limit for Commencement (Full Permission)

2.         B02 - Development in Accordance with Approved Plans and Materials

3.         H20 - Road Completion in 2 Years

4.         H06 - Vehicular Access Construction

5.         H09 - Driveway Gradient

6.         H12 - Parking and Turning - Single House

7.         M17 - Water Efficiency - Residential

8.         H27 - Parking for Site Operatives

9.         H29 - Secure Covered Cycle Parking Provision

10.       The recommendations for species and habitat enhancements set out in the ecologist’s report from November 2016 and great crested newt report of June 2017 should be followed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  A working method statement for protected species present together with an enhancement plan integrated with the landscape plan should be submitted to the local planning authority in writing.  The plan shall be implemented as approved.

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and 2012 amendment) and to comply Herefordshire Council’s Policies LD2 Biodiversity and Geodiversity, LD3 Green Infrastructure of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

11.       An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works should be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (with amendments and as supplemented by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

Date of next site inspection – 3 April 2018

Date of next meeting – 4 April 2018

The Planning Committee noted the date of the next meeting had changed to 11 April 2018 with site inspections on 10 April.