Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie and JA Hyde.

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

Councillor GJ Powell substituted for Councillor JA Hyde and Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor KS Guthrie.

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

Agenda item 9 – 161859 – Land West of Larksmead, Brampton Abbotts, Ross-on-Wye

Councillors PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, J Hardwick, and EJ Swinglehurst declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2016.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman received the Committee’s assent to variations to the order of the agenda.

(The agenda items were discussed in the following order: 151983 – Rogers Farm, Bush Bank, Hereford; 161522 – Land at Yarpole, Leominster; 161627 – Plot 7 Land at Yarpole, Leominster; 151584 – land adjacent to Brick House, Luston; 161859 – land west of larksmead, Brampton Abbots; and 162283 – Records Office, Harold St, Hereford.)

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Councillor DW Greenow requested that thanks to Mr E Thomas, Principal Planning Officer, should be recorded on behalf of himself as local ward member and Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council for Mr Thomas’s work on a recent appeal.

Proposed erection of two poultry buildings, new access and conversion of building to house biomass boiler.

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

(Proposed erection of two poultry buildings, new access and conversion of building to house biomass boiler.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Pendleton, of Birley with Upper Hill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs Pritchatt, a local resident neighbouring the development, 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 MJK Cooper, spoke on the application.

He commented that there were a number of issues for the Committee to consider: the scale of the development, its proximity to a neighbouring development, drainage, access and odour.  He welcomed the fact that a peer review of the odour assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicants had been carried out.  He also observed that the applicant had done much to address issues that had been identified.  He thanked the Parish Council and Mrs Pritchatt for their comments on the application.

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

In support of the application

·        It was stated that the proposed development was close to an A road and to the processing plant.  The proposal was to be cut into the hill and did not have an adverse landscape impact.

In objection to the application

·        A number of concerns were expressed about the Environment Agency’s capacity to ensure that the conditions in the Environmental Permit were adhered to.  It was noted that paragraph 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that local planning authorities should assume that pollution control regimes, such as the Agency, would operate effectively.

·        A concern was expressed about highway safety.  It was observed that the speed limit on that stretch of road was often ignored and, whilst classified as an A road, the character of the A4110 was more like a B road at several points.  Large vehicles removing waste and water would present problems.

·        Such developments did create noise, dust, pests, traffic and odour to the detriment of neighbours. The problems were intensified during the cleaning out process.

·        Whilst manure from such developments might be considered a valuable crop fertiliser, it was also a major contributor to pollution of the county’s water courses.  Pollution levels were prohibiting housing development in some locations.

·        It was asked whether the dust from the farming operation could be washed into river courses by rain.

·        The impact on the amenity of Yew Tree Cottage and Micklegarth was of particular concern.  The proposal appeared contrary to policy SS6 noting the reference to conserving and enhancing assets, local amenity, air quality and tranquillity

·        The EA had stated that the application had no effect on the Special Area of Conservation.  It was asked if they had done some baseline testing.

In response to questions officers replied as follows:

·        The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) confirmed that paragraph 122 of the NPPF stated that local planning authorities should assume that pollution control  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Demolish existing building and construct a new boarding house to accommodate 49 pupils, nurse bedroom, houseparent accommodation, house tutors flat and overnight staff room.

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

(Demolish existing building and construct a new boarding house to accommodate 49 pupils, nurse bedroom, houseparent accommodation, house tutors flat and overnight staff room.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr T Taylor, of Bartonsham History Group, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr P Smith, the Headmaster of Hereford Cathedral School, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor LC Tawn, spoke on the application. He commented that he recognised the significant contribution Hereford Cathedral School made to the County.  However, he could not support the application.  The pre-planning advice had been that the existing militia barracks should be retained, not demolished as proposed.  The considerations were set out fully in the report.  There were several objections to the proposal including some from local history groups and these represented the concerns of a strong local community.  He considered the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application Members expressed support for the contribution made to the county by the school and its ambitions but considered that the existing building was of importance to the County and should be retained.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He agreed with comments expressed in opposition to the scheme.

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

1.               The development would result in the total loss of the former Hereford Militia Barracks; a non-designated heritage asset of significant local interest.  Having regard to the balanced judgement set down at NPPF paragraph 135, which includes consideration of the scale of loss and significance of the asset, the Local Planning Authority concludes that proposal is contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policies LD4 and SD1 and guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF.  The development proposals would fail to fulfil the environmental and social roles of sustainable development and are not held, therefore, to represent sustainable development.

2.         The development would result in the construction of a 3-storey building of an appearance, scale and massing that would appear stark and discordant in the local context.  The Local Planning Authority does not consider that the scheme demonstrates that the character of the surrounding townscape has positively influenced the design and scale of the development proposal.  Accordingly the scheme is held contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policies LD1 and SD1 and guidance set out in the NPPF; which confirms that poor design, which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, should be refused.  The development proposal is not, therefore, considered to fulfil the social and environmental roles of sustainable development and does not, therefore, represent sustainable development.

            Having regard to Reasons for Refusal 1 and 2, and the approach to decision-making prescribed by Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy SS1 and NPPF paragraph 14, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Proposed residential dwelling.

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

(Proposed residential dwelling.)

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.  He highlighted that although there had been discussions about revising the siting of the proposed dwelling these had not led to any change and the application before the Committee was identical to the application it had refused in October 2015.

Since the publication of the report 2 further letters of support had been received.

A counsel’s opinion had also been obtained by an objector.  In summary this argued for the weight that should be given to the Committee’s previous decision and the importance of consistency in decision making.

The Development Manager reminded the Committee of the grounds on which it had refused the previous, identical, application and that that decision was an important material consideration.  However, he added that since that consideration there had been two material changes.  The Council did not have a five year housing land supply as it had had at the time of the previous application.  This meant that development proposals that accorded with the development plan should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,  

In addition the Wye Valley AONB Partnership Manager had this time submitted comments and had expressed no objection to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs E Malcolm, Acting Clerk to Brampton Abbots and Foy Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Teague, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms V Simpson, 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:

·        The application was identical to the one refused by the Committee in October 2015.  The applicant had not appealed against that decision. Consistency of decision making was important.

·        The proposal had a ridge height of 6.5 metres, was on a plateau on a hill overlooking Ross-on-Wye.  It was in the AONB and weight should be given to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·        Development proposals in the Parish were sufficient to meet the indicative target for housing growth.

·        The design was not of appropriate quality.

·        He also expressed reservations about the redirection process and the fact that although the first application had been refused by the Committee it had originally been intended to approve the second, identical, application using delegated powers.

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

·        The application was on an exposed site and represented inappropriate development within the AONB. It did not conserve and enhance the landscape as required by policy LD1. 

·        It was questioned what weight could be given to the contribution one dwelling made to the five year housing land supply balanced against the adverse impact on the AONB.  A view was expressed that the adverse impact on the AONB outweighed the contribution to the five year housing land supply.

·        In response to questions about the five year housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Proposed 6 no. Detached dwellings and 4 no. Garages.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s revised recommendation for refusal reported at the meeting.

(Proposed 6 no. detached dwellings and 4 no. Garages.)

Consideration of this application had been deferred by the Committee on 2 November.

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.

He added that the Transportation Manager had reviewed a traffic speed survey commissioned by the Parish Council and had recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that the proposal would present significant harm to highway safety.  Accordingly the Development Manager wished to change his recommendation to one of refusal on highway safety grounds having regard to policies MT1 and SS1.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs B Nurse, of Yarpole Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Barnett, a local resident, also spoke in objection. 

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

He commented that he remained of the view that the proposal had a number of aspects of concern, including emergency access in the event of flooding, Welsh Water’s recent confirmation that the local wastewater treatment works could not accommodate any new development until improvements were carried out and that the proposal was outside the settlement boundary. However, the principal concern, that of highway safety had now been recognised and the application should be refused in accordance with the revised officer recommendation.

In response to questions as to whether anything could be done to mitigate the highway safety concerns and about the robustness of the evidence provided by the Parish Council the Lead Development Manager commented that the matter had been examined.  Whilst the Inspector had concluded in an appeal on an earlier application that there was no evidence before her that the proposal would have had an unacceptable impact in terms of highway safety, the new evidence provided to the Committee demonstrated that there was a clear and severe highway safety issue.

In relation to sewerage, if the scheme were to be approved a Grampian condition could be applied so that any development could not proceed until such time as appropriate infrastructure had been provided.  The Development Manager added that Welsh Water had always acknowledged that new development could not be accommodated without increased water treatment capacity and this was provided for in their plans.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the scheme.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal represented a significant and demonstrable harm to highway safety.

Proposed dwelling and garage.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s revised recommendation for refusal reported at the meeting.

(Proposed dwelling and garage.)

Consideration of this application had been deferred by the Committee on 2 November.

The Development Manager commented that as the site adjoined the site of application 161522 the subject of the previous agenda item, most of the same considerations applied.  There was now an objection to the application on highway safety grounds.  In addition, following the refusal of application 161522, the proposal now represented development in the open countryside and was contrary to policy RA3.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor WLS Bowen spoke on the application.  He confirmed his opposition to the scheme on highway safety grounds and that the application was now contrary to policy RA3.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the proposal represented a significant and demonstrable harm to highway safety and was contrary to policy RA3.

Proposed residential development for three detached and four semi detached dwellings with modified vehicle access to B4361.

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

(Proposed residential development for three detached and four semi-detached dwellings with modified vehicle access to B4361.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Thompson of Luston Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Baume, 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 expressed regret that the proposal represented backland development.  The Parish Council had been proactive in identifying preferred development sites.  It supported the development of the site in principle but considered that a development of up to a maximum of 5 houses would be acceptable.  He also expressed concerns about surface water run off into the brook at Luston and the risk of flooding, suggesting that if the application were to be approved consideration should be given to an attenuation pond, and the inclusion of a Grampian condition to ensure that the sewerage system was adequate.  In addition vehicles associated with the construction should be required to park on site.

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

·        The principle of development was accepted by the Parish Council and the density a 17 per hectare was within the Council’s parameters.

·        The type of backland development proposed eroded the character of the village.

·        Flooding of the brook at Luston was a serious issue and consideration should be given to rainwater harvesting and a wet drainage system.

·        The development was urban style development in a rural village and a development of 7 houses was too big.  A development of five houses of appropriate style would be more appropriate.  The proposal would not conserve and enhance the character of the settlement, it would harm it.

·        Developers should have regard to the views of Parish Councils.  A development of five houses would be more appropriate.

·        The proposal was in a conservation area, but the Conservation Manager (Historic buildings) had commented that the proposed development would have a neutral effect.

·        It was questioned whether the proposal met the criteria of policy RA2.

The Lead Development Manager commented that officers had secured a reduction in the proposed development from the 14 dwellings originally proposed.  He considered a development of 7 houses to be acceptable. Condition 18 required water conservation and efficiency measures and other conditions controlled surface water run off.  The proposal represented organic growth and complied with policy RA2.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his request for consideration to be given to an attenuation pond and his regret at the loss of green space.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions recommended by officers:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2          B02 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3          C01 Samples of external materials

4          F14 Removal of permitted development rights

5          F16 No new windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Date of next site inspection – 10 January 2017

Date of next meeting – 11 January 2017