Apologies were received from Councillors C Butler, PJ Edwards, EL Holton and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor JA Hyde attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor C Butler, Councillor WLS Bowen for Councillor PJ Edwards, Councillor PM Morgan for Councillor WC Skelton and Councillor NE Shaw for Councillor EL Holton.

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

Agenda item no. 11 – 171931 – Cop Castle, Bringsty Common, Bromyard, Worcester, Herefordshire WR6 5UN

Councillor NE Shaw declared a schedule one disclosable pecuniary interest as the applicant. He would leave the meeting room at the start of the item and remain absent from proceedings for the entirety of the discussions and decision-making. 

There were two further declarations of interest please see minutes 47 and 48 below.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2017.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman requested that if members felt that a site visit in respect of any applications on the agenda was required then this should, where possible, be raised as a proposal at the start of the item. 

Proposed site for up to 80 dwellings, garages, parking, open space and indicative road layout at land off Ashfield way, Bromyard, Herefordshire, HR7 4BF.

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

During consideration and determination of the application Councillor Seldon acted as the local ward member and exercised no voting rights.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and confirmed that following the consultation response of the Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) an allocation of funding had been included in the heads of terms to deliver improvements to the local surgery.

In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at planning and regulatory committee, Mr R Page of Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, spoke in opposition to the application. Mrs C Hughes, a local resident, speaking on behalf of residents of Ashfield Way spoke in objection.

Councillor A Seldon, the local ward member, spoke on the application and made the following points:

·           The response from the CCG had acknowledged the strain on the local surgery and an allocation of section 106 funding was required. The surgery was one of the busiest in Herefordshire and a large influx of residents would undermine the provision of primary and secondary healthcare to new and existing residents.

·           The site was a windfall development and had not previously been allocated in any local plans.

·           Core Strategy Policy BY1 identified the construction of a minimum of 500 houses and 5 hectares of employment land up to 2031 and took account of infrastructure requirements.

·           Under Policy BY2 the site at Hardwick Bank had been identified as the preferred strategic housing site after consultation with the Town Council. Taking into account the housing proposed for the Hardwick Bank site, the likely re-development of the highways depot and the current application Bromyard could potentially experience an increase of 900 houses and it was doubted whether the infrastructure was in place to support this expansion.

·           It was important for the committee to consider each application brought before it on an independent and individual basis. However, a strategic oversight of the impact of a high level of housing development on Bromyard should be borne in mind.

·           The impact of additional housing on St Peters primary school was raised. The school was close to capacity and the application would have significant impact on educational infrastructure.

·           Councillor Seldon declared a personal interest as Vice Chairman of the Governing body of St Peters primary school.

·           The application had not identified employment land and was contrary to policies SS5 and BY1.

·           The reasons proposed to approve the application, particularly the lack of 5 year housing supply and the absence of a neighbourhood plan at Bromyard, were questioned. A solar farm had recently been refused on an adjacent site due to impact on landscape, policy LD1 had been cited in the reasons for the refusal. Recent legal precedent supported the refusal of the application on landscape grounds.

·           In the event that the application was approved a condition was requested which ensured that local residents and the town council was involved at an early stage in discussions concerning a reserved matters application.

In the committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were raised:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Re-development of former council offices at Bath Street, Hereford including change of use from B1 - business to C3 - dwellinghouses to provide a total of 75no.  apartments (comprising 1 & 2 bed apartments). Re-development includes partial demolition of existing buildings (as indicated on submitted drawings), conversion of at former council offices, 39 Bath Street, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 2HQ.           

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

The Acting Development Manager gave a presentation on the application. It was summarised that the public benefits arising from the application outweighed the potential impacts on the designated heritage asset (Central Conservation Area) and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

In accordance with the procedure for public speaking Mrs Gale, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Neep, agent to the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Hyde declared a personal interest in the application as a cabinet support member who had regularly attended the council offices in Bath Street.

In the committee’s discussions of the application the following principal points were made:

·           The development represented much needed city accommodation and made good use of a brownfield site. The plans not only proposed development but created a community in the heart of the city.

·           The plans, including the layout of the site and the incorporation of existing buildings, were commended as an example of high quality design.

·           Sympathy was expressed for local residents who may be affected during any potential construction period but it was acknowledged that planning conditions would be imposed to regulate the building phase, including dust suppression. The planting of mature trees on site was requested to address concerns regarding the impact of the development on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. The enhancement of landscaping on the site was also raised as a method of mitigating some impacts including noise and views.

·           The absence of consultation with the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) was noted and it was felt that applications of significant size should warrant consultation with local health bodies. The council and the developer had responded positively to concerns expressed by the City Council and the Hereford Civic Society.

·           The installation of PV cells on the flat roofing sections of the development was raised which could provide energy production for the locality.

·           The installation of a sprinkler system in the proposed buildings and the provision of stairwells were questioned.

·           The Chairman explained that the concerns of the local resident regarding dust from the site would be raised with the local ward member and contact with building control at the council should be maintained to ensure any issues which arose were reported promptly and addressed.

The Acting Development Manager responded to the queries raised: the CCG had been approached during the consultation; the sprinklers and the stairwells were issues which would be addressed during the building regulations stage; condition 15 ensured the screening of the site on Lloyd Street; the installation of PV cells had not been included in the designs due to the energy efficiency of the fabric-first approach to construction, their appearance, cost and future maintenance. The Lead Development Manager confirmed that conditions had been proposed for parking, restricting the hours of construction and the production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan which would relate to dust and would be enforced.

Councillor JA Hyde and Councillor WLS Bowen proposed a motion to approve the application in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Erection of a barn egg unit for fertile egg production at White House Farm, Watery Lane, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, HR3 5TB.

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

The principal 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 procedure for public speaking Mr Gardiner of the Archenfield Campaign spoke in objection to the application and Mr Morgan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member Councillor PD Price, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·           The significant issue relating to the application concerned the impact of the proposed structure on the landscape. The planting and hedges that had been proposed as part of the application would help to mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape. The barn proposed in the application was recessed into the hillside which reduced its impact on the landscape.

·           The view of the landscape officer had changed during the application process. At first there had been no objection and the application was likely to be determined by delegated, officer decision. Following objections from the Archenfield Campaign the officer had raised an objection.

·           Elements of the report from the landscape consultant (Carly Tinkler), on behalf of the Archenfield Campaign, were question and it was felt there were certain inaccuracies which could be misleading. The location of the application site was within the Wye Valley but there were consistent references in the report to the Golden Valley. The reference to the deer park was also questioned which was considered to be at a significant distance from the site.

·           A large barn, on higher ground than the application site existed at Upper Broadmeadow Farm, close to Archenfield. The area was a rural and agriculture landscape where structures of this type were found.

·           There were limited long distance views to the application site and contrary to the statement in the landscape report it was not felt that the development could be readily viewed from popular, long-distance paths nearby. The report had stated that users of the local footpaths would be adversely affected by the development but these paths were only rarely used and mitigation could be implemented including the planting of hedgerow.  

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

·           The barn proposed in the application was for agricultural purposes located in a rural, agricultural setting. It was a rural enterprise which would support the local rural community and agriculture in the area.

·           The area in which the development was proposed was not a busy tourist area, the local footpaths were not regularly walked. The application site was not adjacent to a village. The proposed development when viewed from the higher ground at Bullens Bank would be recessed in to the foot of the hillside and the proposed paint colour would mitigate the impact of the structure on the landscape and wider panoramic view to an acceptable level.

·           The significant level of mitigation proposed, including planting and painting of the barn,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Proposed dwelling at land adjacent to Sunnybank Cottage, Little Birch, Herefordshire.

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

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 attached to these minutes.

In accordance with the procedure for public speaking, Mr M Morley, Little Birch Parish Council, spoke in support of the application and Mr Jones, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, the local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal points:

·           There was a high level of support locally for the application. 21 letters in support had been received and the parish council had also expressed its support;

·           The lack of a five year housing supply and the requirement for the committee to exercise balance and judgement in determination of the application. The application would enable the applicant to construct a house suitable for the elderly and allow him to remain in the village he had always lived in, into his old age.

·           There was not a neighbourhood development plan for Little Birch in place but this was currently in process and was being produced.

·           The sustainability assessment in the report was questioned as the lay out of the village of Little Birch was sprawling in nature and there was not a natural centre to the village. 

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

·           Consideration of the need for additional retirement homes in the county.

·           The absence of a neighbourhood development plan and the position of the proposed site within the curtilage of the village.

·           Sympathy was expressed for the applicant but it was feared that the approval of the application would establish a precedent which would result in additional developments in the open countryside in the village.

·           The application was felt to be premature, pre-empting the finalisation of the neighbourhood development plan. The site could be included in the neighbourhood development plan but the committee should not override the existing planning policy framework to grant permission. Consistency of decision making, in accordance with policy, was necessary.

The lead development manager commented that the neighbourhood development plan for the area was currently at the regulation 14 stage. No weight could be given to the plan until it reached a more advanced stage.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and commented that he would encourage the finalisation of the neighbourhood development plan.

Councillor JLV Kenyon proposed and Councillor DW Greenow seconded a motion to approve the application. The motion was lost: 2 in favour and 11 against.

Councillor A Seldon proposed and Councillor WLS Bowen seconded a motion to refuse the application in line with the reasons outlined by the officer in the report. The motion was carried: 11 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reason

1.    The proposal represents unjustified unsustainable residential development in an open countryside location contrary to the Herefordshire Local Plan:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Ground floor: remove infill stone to expose inglenook fireplace to original extent. Replace broken concrete floor of fireplace. Install chimney liner.  First floor: remove blanking plasterboard to fireplace and renovate fireplace as found. Cap chimney pot at Cop Castle, Bringsty Common, Bringsty, Worcester, WR6 5UN.

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

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

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

·           The importance of considering applications of elected members at meetings of the planning committee to ensure transparency and probity.

·           The application was supported.

A motion was proposed by Councillor WLS Bowen and seconded by Councillor EJ Swinglehurst to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: That listed building consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. D01 – Time limit for Commencement (Listed Building Consent)

2.    B02 – Development in Accordance with Approved Plans and Materials

INFORMATIVES

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Date of next site inspection – 3 October 2017

Date of next meeting – 4 October 2017