To receive apologies for absence.

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.

Councillor John Hardwick declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 7, application 202566 – Much Fawley Farm; the applicant was a known associate.

There were two further declarations of interest, please see minute 44 below.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2021.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2021 be approved.

The proposed redevelopment of land and buildings at Bastion Mews to create a mixed-use independent quarter comprising new commercial floorspace and visitor accommodation, associated demolition, use of external areas as events space and associated works of alteration to No.18 Union Street to enable a second means of access/egress.

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

(Councillor Jeremy Milln left the committee to act as the local ward member for the next application.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

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

In accordance with the council's constitution the local Ward member spoke on the application. In summary he commented that issues with the application were unusual in terms of the form and material of the development and its location in a sensitive Hereford environment. It was questioned whether the application complied with core strategy policy SS6 to conserve and enhance the existing environment and policy LD1 to positively influence the townscape. A consideration of the acceptability of the impact of the development on the historical environment and heritage asset was required. It was noted that the historic buildings officer had objected to the scheme due to the impact of the shipping containers on heritage assets and the materials used which were deemed to be incongruous.

The committee discussed the application.

The local Ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that the proposal was not unique, two more sites utilised shipping containers within the mediaeval city walls. It was noted that the use of shipping containers would minimise ground disturbance and damage to potential archaeological sites.

A motion that the application be approved was moved and was carried unanimously.

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.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.     The development to the fire damaged area of No.3 Bastion Mews and to No.18 Union Street shall be carried out strictly in accordance with drawing numbers 1694 601 Rev B and 1694 402 Rev C except where otherwise agreed in writing stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interest of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.     The siting, layout, scale and external finishes of the of the containers shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and the schdeule of materials herein (drawing nos. 1694 308 E, 1694 309 A and 1694 313) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure adherance to the approved plans and to protect the character, apperance and amenities of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policies SD1 and LD4 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the advice contained within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Installation of combined heat and power unit and green storage container. Retrospective.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave the presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria the public speaking Mr R Palgrave, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr N Green, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary he explained that the site and its history was complex. The Environment Agency and planning enforcement had been involved on the site with respect to noise and odour issues. The noise that was produced by the combined heat and power unit unreasonably affected residential amenity and provided a reason for refusal of the application. The impact of the site on the water quality in the River Wye was questioned. It was queried whether the wall on the site was lawful or in accordance with previous permissions. It was noted that a number of Local residents and the parish council opposed the application.

Councillor Barry Durkin declared an other interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB.

Councillor John Hardwick declared an other interest as a member of the Wye Valley AONB.

The committee discussed the application.

A motion that the application be deferred was moved. The motion was later withdrawn following the withdrawal of the seconder.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that the planting on site as mitigation had been a cause of concern for the Landscape officer.

A motion that the application be approved was moved and was carried.

Proposed erection of three sustainable holiday lodges.

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

(Councillor John Stone left the committee to act as the local ward member for the next application.)

The Development Manager, North team, gave a presentation on the application and updates/ representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheets and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr D Edwards, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr E Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary he commented there were concerns locally the lodges would become houses for residential use. Local objection concerned: the sustainability of the site; the increase in traffic movements accessing the site; drainage from the site; noise; and the overlooking of existing properties. The application was not in accordance with policy BLH18 of the neighbourhood development plan. Car parking was limited and the noise from the site would impact adversely upon residential amenity. The application would result in greater levels of traffic on local roads. It was noted that alternative tourist facilities existed locally therefore the need for the development was questioned. The sustainability of the site was questioned: there was limited economic and social benefit; and adverse environmental impact on local residential amenity caused by increased noise and light.

The committee discussed the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained: the application was in open countryside; it would impact on the local highway network; drainage issues had not been clarified; the application did not conform to policy BLH8 and BLH18 in the local neighbourhood development plan; the location was not sustainable; and the impact on residential amenity posed by noise, parking and lighting was unacceptable.

A motion that the application be refused due to: a lack of evidenced need for the development; an unacceptable impact on residential amenity; and insufficient evidence of the sustainability of the application (with reference to policies SS1, SD1, RA6 and E4 of the Core Strategy and policies BLH 8 and 18 of the neighbourhood development plan) was moved and was carried unanimously.

Resolved – that planning permission is refused due to: a lack of evidenced need for the development; an unacceptable impact on residential amenity; and insufficient evidence of the sustainability of the application (with reference to policies SS1, SD1, RA6 and E4 of the Core Strategy and policies BLH 8 and 18 of the neighbourhood development plan)