Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, TM James, MD Lloyd-Hayes, NE Shaw and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor PA Andrews substituted for Councillor TM James, Councillor JA Hyde for Councillor DW Greenow, Councillor D Summers for Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes and Councillor EJ Swinglehurst for Councillor NE Shaw.

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 item 6 – 181975 – Land at Stone Farm, Felton

Councillor Powers and Councillor Summers declared other declarable interests as they knew one of the speakers on behalf of the Parish Council.

Councillor J Hardwick declared an other declarable interest as he knew the applicant and the family.

Mr K Bishop, Lead Development Manager, declared an other declarable interest because he knew the applicant’s agent who had formerly worked for the Planning Department.

Agenda item 7 – 181978 – Land adjacent to Stone Farm, Felton

Councillor Powers and Councillor Summers declared other declarable interests as they knew one of the speakers on behalf of the Parish Council.

Councillor J Hardwick declared an other declarable interest as he knew the applicant and the family.

Mr K Bishop, Lead Development Manager, declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant’s agent who had formerly worked for the Planning Department.

Agenda item 9 – 181237 – Land at Little Fields, Bridstow

Councillors Cutter, Hardwick and Swinglehurst declared schedule 2 interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

It was noted that most members would know the applicant’s agent for applications 181975 and 181978 because he was a former employee of the council and that most members would know the person speaking on application 181237 because of the position he had held in the county.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

None.

Proposed residential development comprising 3 no. Self-build dwellings and associated works.

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

(Proposed residential development comprising 3no self-build dwellings and associated works.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Blackmore, of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Edwards, 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 JG Lester, spoke on the application.  He informed the Committee that because of a personal reason he would have to leave the meeting shortly.  His comments would therefore also be of relevance to application 181978 also at Stone Farm, the next application on the Committee’s agenda, which, whilst a separate application, was interlinked.

He made the following principal comments:

·         He considered that both schemes had merit.  They were contrary to two local policies.  However, he questioned whether they were contrary to the definition of sustainable development at paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·         He noted the benefits arising from the mix of housing proposed, the self-build element of the first application and the affordable housing element of the second application.

·         The land was not identified for development in the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  The production of an NDP took a considerable amount of effort and the Parish Council and the person speaking in objection had highlighted the inconsistency with the NDP.

·         There were objectors to and supporters of the proposals.

·         He noted the proximity to the A417, referred again to issues of sustainability and the proximity to other community assets.

·         The question was whether the local policies carried sufficient weight to outweigh the benefits of the schemes.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that the scheme was contrary to policy and the benefits of the scheme were not sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the Committee had weighed the merits of the scheme and balanced that against the weight that could be given to the NDP.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He indicated that he considered the Committee had weighed the material considerations.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Swinglehurst seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 14 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

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

1.         The proposed development lies beyond the defined settlement boundaries for Ullingswick and Burley Gate, contrary to Policy OPG2 of the emerging Ocle Pychard Group Neighbourhood Development Plan. The applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the proposal is to be considered under any exceptional circumstances, other than self build which is not identified as an exceptional circumstance in Policy RA3. It represents development in the open countryside without any exceptional justification and is thus also contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policy RA3. The proposal is at odds  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Proposed residential development comprising 8 no. Dwellings and associated works (4 no. Affordable dwellings, 3 no. Self-build dwellings and 1 no. Open market dwelling).

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

(Proposed residential development comprising 8no dwellings and associated works (4no affordable dwellings, 3 no self-build dwellings and 1no open market dwelling.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  He highlighted that certain elements of the application were shared with application 181975, the subject of the previous agenda item.  A key difference was the provision of 4 affordable houses and consideration of the weight to be attributed to this factor.

In response to a question he confirmed that the two applications were separate applications and the Committee could properly consider whether the planning balance for the second application was different from the first.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Blackmore, of Ocle Pychard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr R Edwards, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Tompkins, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

As referred to in consideration of application 181975, the previous agenda item, the local ward member, Councillor JG Lester, had had to leave the meeting.   His comments on the previous application had been applicable in part to this application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that the site was in the open countryside and the proposed affordable housing would not be near to services and would therefore be unsustainable.  The scheme was contrary to policy and the benefits of the scheme were not sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

The Lead Development Manager clarified that there were dwellings in the area and the site could not therefore be classified as isolated.  It was, however, in the open countryside.  He also highlighted the provisions of policy H2.

Councillor Guthrie proposed and Councillor Holton seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 14 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

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

1.         The proposed development lies beyond the defined settlement boundaries for Ullingswick and Burley Gate, contrary to Policy OPG2 of the emerging Ocle Pychard Group Neighbourhood Development Plan. The applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the proposal is to be considered under any exceptional circumstances, other than self build which is not identified as an exceptional circumstance in Policies RA3 and H2. It represents development in the open countryside without any exceptional justification and is thus also contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policy RA3. The proposal is at odds with the strategic approach towards housing allocation in the rural areas and as a result, the proposal does not represent a sustainable form of development and is contrary to Policies SS1, SS6, RA2 and RA3 and H2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

2.         In light of the conflict with the local planning authority’s approach towards strategic housing allocation in its rural areas, the landscape impacts caused are unwarranted.  The development would result in a degree of domestication in a countryside setting that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Proposed erection of poultry managers dwelling, together with garage/storage building and package treatment plant.

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

(Proposed erection of poultry manager’s dwelling, together with garage/storage building and package treatment plant.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Thomas, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The farm was well established and seeking to diversify, requiring additional workers.  There were no objections to the application.

·        The proposal was consistent with paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Poultry houses required a manager.  This was a skilled job and the employment market envisaged a certain salary and the provision of a house on site.

·        He referred to a communication from the Chairman of the Pembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan Group that the proposal was consistent with the draft plan.  He noted that the Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        He did not agree with the suggestion that an existing barn could be converted to provide a dwelling.  The barn was too large and the conversion of it would be correspondingly costly compared with the proposal in the application.

·        He questioned the consistency of decision making and advice from the agricultural consultant referring to two similar applications in recent years in his ward, at Shobdon and outside Kington, that, on the advice of a different consultant, had been approved by officers under delegated authority.

·        The report did not refer to the Defra codes of recommendations and guidance on animal welfare.

·        There was a functional need for a full time poultry manager on site.  The proposal was consistent with paragraph 79 of the NPPF and policies RA3 and RA4.

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

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal as did the Pembridge NDP.

·        The development created no harm.

·        There was a need for a manager on site. The proposal was for dwelling on site specifically to accommodate a Poultry Manager. It was in proximity to the poultry houses.  The application was not for a new home in the open countryside.  

·        If was confirmed that if approved the dwelling would have an agricultural tie.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that in assessing applications of this nature regard had to be had to the other dwellings in the farm’s ownership. A barn extension to the house, for which an application had been submitted the previous year, could have been constructed as an annexe to provide accommodation for the applicant’s mother, freeing up the dwelling 500m away that she currently occupied, or for a poultry manager.

·        Policy required there to be an essential need for a worker to live on site.  If it was concluded there was such a need, the question then turned on whether the need could be met within existing accommodation.

·        One difficulty in considering the application was that there had been a number of instances where applications had been made for agricultural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Proposed erection of 8 no. Houses consisting of 4 no. 3 bed & 4 no. 4 bed houses along with associated roads, parking and soft landscaping. 

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

(Proposed erection of 8no houses consisting of 4no 3 bed, and 4no 4bed houses along with associated roads, parking and soft landscaping.)

(Councillor Swinglehurst fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. He provided an update that based on January 2014 figures the Council needs survey identified that of the minimum target of 57 dwellings for Bridstow 6% (3) were 1 bedroom, 25% (14) were 2 bedroom, 58% (33) were 3 bedroom and 11% (6) 4 bed (rounding down leaving a remainder of 1.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Jenny Collin of Bridstow Parish Council spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr A Priddis, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Rachel Hare, the applicant’s architect, 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:

·        The impact on the AONB and whether or not the location was in or adjacent to the main settlement were key considerations.

·        She had requested a redirection because there was a degree of local concern about a number of aspects including the impact on highways, on the AONB, sustainability of the location, the design and character of the development, effect on a public right of way, amenity of neighbouring properties and encroachment into the open countryside.

·        In addition the Parish Council was finding it challenging to develop a Neighbourhood Development Plan and was looking for assistance in taking the plan forward.

·        The application was of a high quality. However, she considered its approval to be a marginal decision.

·        She referred to an appeal against a refusal, under delegated powers, of an application for a chalet bungalow on a neighbouring site “Woodlands”.  The appeal had been upheld by an Inspector.  That application had at least some factors in common with the application before the Committee and had a bearing on considering whether the site was within or adjacent to the settlement in which case it was compliant with policy RA2.

·        It was questionable whether the proposal could be said to conserve and enhance the AONB in accordance with paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        The report concluded that the proposal was not major development in the AONB.  That was a matter for the decision maker.  She considered that the development would have an impact on the experience of the AONB.  The landscape officer considered that the mitigation was sufficient to offset this.

·        Tranquility and darkness were also an important part of the quality of the AONB that needed to be considered with particular regard to controlling external lighting that would urbanise the location.

·        She referred to the remarks of an Inspector for another appeal against refusal for development at Burnt House on the importance of the landscape in the AONB and the provisions in the NPPF on conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB and local distinctiveness.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.