Apologies were received from Councillors J Hardwick, EL Holton, 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 WLS Bowen substituted for Councillor EL Holton, Councillor AW Johnson for Councillor NE Shaw and Councillor A Seldon for Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes.

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 7: Mile End, Broad Lane, Leominster

Councillors BC Baker and WLS Bowen declared other declarable interests as council appointees to the River Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 23 January 2019.

It was highlighted with reference to the minutes of the meeting held on the afternoon of 23 January that the final paragraph of Minute 111 prior to the resolution omitted the reasons for refusal, as advanced and reflected in the resolution below that paragraph, and required correction accordingly.

RESOLVED:  

That      (a)     the minutes of the meeting held on the morning of 23 January 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman; and

              (b)     the minutes of the meeting held on the afternoon of 23 January 2019, as amended, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

A Member sought clarification on the implications of the judicial review decision notice in relation to application 173669: land at Woonton, Almeley that had been approved by the Committee on 27 June 2018.  The Chairperson agreed to arrange for an answer to be provided and included in the minutes. 

Hybrid application including a full application for student accommodation, comprising 178 no. Bedrooms, including hard and soft landscaping and an outline application for a standalone ancillary commercial element.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Hybrid application including a full application for student accommodation, comprising 178 no. Bedrooms, including hard and soft landscaping and an outline application for a standalone ancillary commercial element.)

The Development Manager 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 J Milln of Hereford Civic Society spoke in objection to the proposal.  Mr A Gourlay of the Cityheart Partnership and A Appleton – Principal of Hereford College of Arts spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PA Andrews and the adjoining ward member Councillor DB Wilcox spoke on the application.

Councillor Andrews made the following principal comments:

·        The art college and the new university needed good quality affordable accommodation for their students.

·        The location was ideal with easy access to the college and the city.

·        The design had been amended to blend in much better with the surrounding buildings.  It was unfortunate that Historic England maintained its objection on heritage grounds.

·        Overall the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm as concluded in the report.

Councillor Wilcox made the following principal comments

·        The developers had acknowledged concerns about the original design and had amended it.

·        The residents of Barrs Court Road had no objection.

·        The height was his biggest reservation.  However, the roofline had been reduced in height and was now sympathetic to Barrs Court Road.

·        The city would benefit from additional students.  The scheme was in a suitable location and would be attractive to them.

·        Landscaping was required, mindful of the removal of some trees, as noted in the comments of the Service Manager Built and Natural Environment set out in the report.  This was addressed by a recommended condition.

·        He had some reservations about the proposed black cladding on the side facing Barrs Court which he did not consider to be sympathetic to the area.  The conditions provided the opportunity for these concerns to be addressed.

·        Such complaints as he had received had mainly related to the loss of the current temporary car park.  He did not consider this to be relevant as the temporary car park had never formed part of the city car parking strategy.

·        Overall the need for the facilities the scheme would provide warranted support for the application.

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

·        The absence of a masterplan for the City was regrettable and was leading to piecemeal development.  It was essential that accommodation needs and people movement issues were addressed in the round. 

·        There had been a considerable amount of work done to improve the scheme and it could now be judged to conserve and enhance the area.

·        It was noted that the City Council had originally opposed the proposal but had now withdrawn its objection.

·        The location was satisfactory.

·        The design of the scheme had been modified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Retrospective permission for the use of the land for wood chipping with wood storage yard and buildings to include; office building, chip stores, drying floor, fan house and boiler house with biomass plant to generate 80kw of electricity.

The application was approved with revised conditions.

(Retrospective permission for the use of the land for wood chipping with wood storage yard and buildings to include; office building, chip stores, drying floor, fan house and boiler house with biomass plant to generate 80kw of electricity.)

(Councillor Bowen fulfilled 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, Mrs A Egerton, of Luston Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr G Downes, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Williams, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The application was retrospective.  The business had grown in size and was now a major wood chipping plant.  It employed 17 people and was of importance to the local economy.

·        The wood chipper that had been used until quite recently had been noisy and a nuisance to residents.

·        Heavy goods vehicles and tractors with trailers visiting the site at all hours including late in the day and early in the morning also created noise and nuisance.

·        Luston Group Parish Council had objected to the application.  It suggested that it would be more appropriate if the business, given the scale it had now reached, were to relocate to the Leominster industrial estate.

·        The business was in conflict with the users of the footpath running through the site.  It was noted that a diversion was proposed.

·        A new chipper was understood to be less noisy.  It was also only on the application site itself for 9 hours of the week.  The rest of the time it was being used where trees were being felled.

·        Conditions were proposed to control working hours, provide screening to reduce noise nuisance and control traffic movement.  It was important that these were strictly monitored and enforced.  If they were not, the nuisance to residents would be too severe.  If the controls were effective the operation might be manageable.

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

·        The access road to the site was in poor repair and very dusty.  This created additional noise.  The surface should be made good.

·        The proposed conditions and the controls they proposed were welcome.  However, it would be essential that they were rigorously enforced. 

·        The nuisance a business of this nature generated and the difficulties in taking enforcement action should not be underestimated. 

·        The footpath was in very poor state badly affected by water run-off and needed to be diverted.

·        The Parish Council objected to the proposal and it was contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan which stated that small scale employment premises should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residential amenity.

·        The success of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Use of agricultural buildings and land to residential development (use class c3). Including demolition, conversion and extensions of agricultural buildings to form 3 no. Dwellings.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

(Change of use of agricultural buildings and land to residential development (use class C3). Including demolition, conversion and extensions of agricultural buildings to form 3 no. dwellings.)

(Councillors Greenow and James had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Williams fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on 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 Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor SD Williams spoke on the application.  He noted that the application was only before the committee because it was a council application.  He highlighted the response of Madley Parish Council set out at section 5.1 of the report.

Members expressed no objections.

The Lead Development Manager confirmed that a condition removed permitted development rights.  There had been full ecological surveys.

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

Councillor Baker proposed and Councillor Johnson 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 conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.         C01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         C06  Development in accordance with the approved plans     

3.         C13 Samples of external materials

4.         C27 Details of external joinery finishes

5.         C32 Specification of guttering and downpipes

6.         C65 Removal of permitted development rights

7.         CAD Access gates (5m)

8.         CAH Driveway gradient

9.         CAL Access, turning area and parking

10.       CAZ Parking for site operatives

11.       CB2 Secure covered cycle parking provision

12.       Before any work, including any site clearance or demolition begins, equipment or materials moved on to site, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be supplied to the planning authority for written approval. The approved CEMP shall be implemented and remain in place until all work is complete on site and all equipment and spare materials have been finally removed.

            Reason: In order to comply with Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), National Planning Policy Framework, NERC Act (2006), NPPF (2018) and Herefordshire Council Core Strategy (2015) policy LD2.

13.       All surface water from the dwellings approved under this decision notice will be managed through a Sustainable Drainage Scheme on land under the applicant’s control as stated in the planning application form and drainage report by HYDROGEO dated July 2018, and this scheme shall be maintained hereafter as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. . In compliance with Council Policy at no point shall any part of any soakaway drainage field be constructed closer than 50m to the river bank or boundary of the River Wye SSSI.

            Reason: In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

(Retrospective) storage building.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Retrospective – storage building)

(Councillors Greenow, James and Powers had left the meeting and were not present during consideration of this application. 

The Development Manager (DM) 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 Harries, of Cradley and Storridge Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms S Thomas, 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 member, Councillor EE Chowns, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        She had requested that the application be considered by the committee because of the strength of local opposition.

·        The development was unnecessary and inappropriate and conflicted with core strategy policies LD1 and LD 2 and Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) policies CNDP 5 and 6.

·        The application was for a very large barn that was out of keeping with the size of the holding and could not reasonably be considered necessary.

·        There was no existing agricultural or forestry activity or history of it since the applicant bought the site in 2011.  There was no economic justification for the proposal. 

·        The applicant had provided no evidence of need for the development.

·        The design was not appropriate for the intended use.  It could easily be converted to residential use noting the windows on the first floor.

·        The application was retrospective.  To date the barn had been used for the storage of construction machinery.  It was not an appropriate location for such storage.  There was no economic benefit to the community.

·        Several applications to develop on agricultural land in the area had been rejected.

·        The site was in the Malvern Hills AONB, in a special wildlife site and adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and ancient woodland.  However, the applicant had given no consideration to the biodiversity impact in the application.

·        She considered that the site was visible from public rights of way.

·        Local residents considered that it did have an adverse impact on their amenity.

·        The applicant had sought to apply for other development in the location.

·        Whilst there was a proposed condition restricting the use of the barn to agricultural and forestry use there was insufficient hay or timber on site to justify the barn.  There was local concern about the ability to enforce conditions.

·        There was no evidence of any effort to conserve and enhance the landscape in accordance with policies LD1 and LD2.  The development was not necessary to promote the social and economic wellbeing of the area and was detrimental in this regard.  The proposal directly affected a wildlife site and there was no proposed mitigation in conflict with NDP policy CNDP 6.

·        There was no evidence that the development was reasonably necessary and it should be refused.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Date of next site inspection – 12 March 2019

Date of next meeting – 13 March 2019

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.