Apologies were received from Councillors Paul Andrews and Johnson.

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

Councillor Wilding substituted for Councillor Paul Andrews.

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: 193391 – Homeleigh, Welsh Newton

Councillor Swinglehurst declared an other declarable interest because she knew one of the objectors.

Agenda item 8: Banbh Farm, Breinton

Councillor Milln declared an other declarable interest because he knew the author of the objection on behalf of the National Trust who was a former colleague.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2020.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson reported that Emily Reed, Senior Planning Officer, was leaving the authority to take up a post elsewhere.  He thanked her for work and wished her well for the future.

Proposed development of two residential dwellings including new vehicular access off the highway.

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

(Proposed development of two residential dwellings including new vehicular access off the highway.)

(Councillor James was not present during the whole consideration of this application and therefore did not vote on it.) 

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, Mrs S Matthews of Llangarron Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr M Harding, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J White, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The application had received representations from 30 objectors and 44 supporters.  Most of the supporters did not live in Llangarron village; the objectors did.

·        Llangarron was not a nucleated village.  This had a bearing on the interpretation of policy RA2 as to whether proposed development was ‘within or adjacent to the main built up settlement’. 

·        The draft NDP, whilst carrying limited weight, had not included the site within the settlement boundaries.  The AECOM report which would inform the NDP had not included the site.  Llangarron village was surrounded by clumps of sporadic growth.  Defining these as part of the main built up settlement would destroy the character of the settlement. 

·        Those opposing the application considered that the site did not fall within a reasonable interpretation of ‘within and adjacent to the main built up area’. 

·        She questioned the report at paragraph 1 which stated that the site had a degree of residential use due to the growing of fruit and vegetables, remarking on the potential conflict with policies designed to limit development in open countryside.

·        The parish council objected to the application.  They considered the site to be outside the main built up area and therefore policy RA3, to which the proposal was contrary, should apply.  The Parish Council also argued that if it was considered the proposal was compliant with policy RA2 in principle it did not meet the requirements of that policy.

·        As a parish Llangarron has met its minimum housing target, and had a 20% margin on top.   

·        Objectors considered the application did not contribute to, and was not essential to, the social wellbeing of the village. It was not a high quality sustainable scheme and failed to make a positive contribution to the landscape setting.  It was also considered contrary to policies LD1 and SS6 by failing to conserve and enhance those environmental assets that contribute to the county’s distinctiveness in particular its settlement pattern, and the design did not reflect the local character. 

·        The dwellings were specifically not designed as starter homes or homes for young families and therefore did not add to the housing mix locally in a way that would reflect housing need. 

·        The applicant had responded to some of the concerns by reducing some of the massing of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application pending further information.

(Proposed replacement dwelling and garage.)

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, Mrs J Ward, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs Hawkins, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        Local residents were unanimous in their objection to the proposal.  The Parish Council had objected to both the original and the revised application.

·        Prior to making a full application the applicant levelled the site.  Hedgerows had been removed and a mature beech tree felled.  She condemned this as ecological destruction in an environmentally sensitive area.

·        There was no objection in principle to a replacement dwelling.  However, Policy RA3 provided that replacement dwellings needed to be ‘comparable in size and scale with, and located in the lawful domestic curtilage of, the existing dwelling’.  The proposal was for a ‘significantly larger’ dwelling than the original building and located elsewhere on the plot.  There had been no attempt to establish whether or not the land was lawful domestic curtilage or agricultural.

·        NDP policy WNL5 provided that new housing should be accessed directly from a made up road.   The stone track to the site was a footpath. The design and access statement was misleading.

·        Local people accepted the principle of replacing the dilapidated, post war bungalow.  They had raised a number of concerns about its removal ranging from asbestos in the structure, effluent and contamination in the surrounding soils, drainage.  These had not been addressed until the publication of the schedule of updates.

·        If the proposal were more suitably located within the plot it probably would not have been redirected to the Committee.

·        Objectors considered the proposal was contrary to the character of the settlement. It did not respond to the local environment.  It sat awkwardly on a narrow plot – shoe-horned in between two existing dwellings, almost filling the width of the plot completely.  It would be possible to fit a three bedroom dwelling into the plot without it being so cramped in a manner not characteristic of the common, as outlined in paragraph 5.2.11 of the NDP.  It was therefore unclear how the proposal complied with policy RA2.  The walls of the proposed dwelling and garage were about 1m and 2m away from the boundaries with The Willows and Hazeldene respectively and only about 7m away from Hazeldene itself.  Housing on the common tended to be offset, with a low degree of intervisibility.  The location of the proposed dwelling was in a line, with a high degree of intervisibility and more urban in nature.

·        The NDP also contained clear policies on building design principles: WNL4: ‘all new development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they…enhance and reinforce local distinctiveness in terms of scale and mass of development;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Erection of an agricultural barn together with appropriate landscaping and planting.

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

(Erection of an agricultural barn together with appropriate landscaping and planting.)

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, Mr A Powers of Breinton Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Dr J Hanks, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Owen, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Chairperson reported that a letter from Councillor Hitchiner, the adjoining ward member, who had been unable to attend the meeting, had been included in the schedule of updates.  He informed the Committee that the final paragraph of that letter should be disregarded as it was not a material consideration.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He shared the concerns of Eaton Bishop Parish Council as to the building’s true purpose.

·        The site did not slope gently, as described in the report, but fell away quite sharply towards the River Wye.  This meant there was a risk of run-off and pollution.

·        Historic England had commented that the development could have a negative impact on the setting of Eaton Camp, a scheduled ancient monument.

·        The access was via narrow lanes.  The proposed use would generate considerable heavy traffic destroying verges and wildlife and create risks for walkers and horse riders who currently used the lanes.

·        He believed there had been more previous applications on the site than recorded in the report, including one for a home for a disabled person.

·        All the previous applications listed in the report had been refused.  He referred to the grounds for refusal of the applicant’s most recent application, and the conclusion that it was contrary to Core Strategy policies SS1, SD1, LD1 and NDP policies B6, B7, B14 and B15.

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

·        In response to a question, the SPO commented that the building would offer some ventilation and would be able to house livestock.  The Development Manager added that animal welfare was subject to a control mechanism that was separate from planning considerations.

·        The legal adviser reminded the Committee that it needed to consider each application on its planning merits.  If any animal health concerns were to emerge that would be a matter for the relevant body to deal with under the relevant, separate, legislation.

·        Weight should be given to the concerns expressed by Breinton Parish Council.

·        No viable business case had been presented.  One view was that the land would be overgrazed.  Sheep had been lost during recent flooding.  The site did not appear suitable for grazing given the likelihood of increasingly frequent flooding.  A contrary view was that the building was not large. A barn could have enabled the sheep that had been lost during the flooding to be secured safely.  It was grassland suitable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Proposed change of use of agricultural land to domestic, use moving the 'native species hedgerow' to the northern boundary.   

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

(Proposed change of use of agricultural land to domestic use, moving the ‘native species hedgerow, to the northern boundary.)

(Councillor Millmore 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.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Millmore, spoke on the application.  He reported that there had been no objection from the Parish Council or others and there were no material objections.

Councillor Hunt proposed and Councillor Stone seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried unanimously with 13 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.               Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         C06 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         Removal of permitted development rights – Class E and H only

4.         No works in relation to the northern boundary treatments required by this condition shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the position, type, design and materials of any boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the enlarged part of the curtilage is brought into first use.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development has an acceptable standard of privacy and to conform to Policy SD1 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, Policy HS5 of the Holmer and Shelwick Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVE:

1.         IP1

Date of next site inspection – 7 April 2020

Date of next meeting – 8 April 2020

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.