Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Online only meeting
Contact: Tim Brown, Democratic Services Officer
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence.
To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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 6: Land at Greyfriars Bridge Hereford
Councillor Rone declared an other declarable interest as he owned a property adjacent to part of the site area.
Councillor Seldon declared an other declarable interest as he knew a local resident.
Councillor Milln declared that he had made a representation in objection to the proposal prior to his election to the council. He confirmed that he would consider the matter with an open mind.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2020.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson.
To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.
The Chairperson reminded the Committee that if they recceived additional material relating to an application on the agenda they should ensure officers were aware of it to enable relevant information to be included in the schedule of updates to the Committee.
Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance.
The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.
(Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to to fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance.)
(Councillor Millmore joined the meeting after the start of the officer presentation and accordingly had no vote.)
The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.
In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings, Mr S Kerry, of Hereford City Council submitted a written submission in opposition to the scheme that was read to the meeting by the legal adviser to the Committee. Mr R Binnersley, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the scheme, as a virtual attendee. Mr D Throup of the Environment Agency, the applicant, made a submission by video recording in support of the application.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Tillett, spoke on the application.
He made the following principal comments:
· He considered that the Environment Agency’s (EA) stated aim to reduce the whole life cost of the defences was a more significant factor in the application than the EA had indicated in its video submission. The proposal would not improve the flood defence capacity. The cost saving needed to be weighed against the impact on the appearance of the site.
· There had to date been no failure to deploy the defences.
· Discussions with the Environment Agency initiated by the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member – Infrastructure and Transport aimed at achieving more local control of the demountable defences, with a saving to the EA, had led nowhere. The EA had rejected all proposals. There had been no amendments to the proposals since December 2018.
· The City Council, Herefordshire Council’s Executive, and local residents, with one exception, opposed the proposal.
· The proposed glass Panels would be at risk of graffiti to the detriment of the appearance of the area. The EA had been unable to offer a solution.
· A disconnect would be created between the river and path alongside that was promoted as a tourism, walking and cycling route.
· He questioned the arrangements for operating the new flood gates.
· The major concern was the setting and appropriateness of the glass wall. It would have an irreversible adverse impact on an historic, iconic view of the City.
· The Core Strategy (CS) contained many policies designed to protect the visual environment and heritage and historic setting. The site contained ancient monuments, historic and listed buildings, and a site of special scientific interest.
· The proposal would provide no gain to the flood defences, and no improvement in addressing flood risk. It was primarily a cost saving exercise by the EA.
In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points ... view the full minutes text for item 117.
Erection of a cattle shed, 1 bay extension to an existing general purpose agricultural storage building and landscaping.
The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with additional conditions.
(Erection of a cattle shed, 1 bay extension to an existing general purpose agricultural storage building and landscaping.)
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 for virtual meetings, Mr P Kemble made a submission by audio recording in objection to the scheme on behalf of The Golden Valley Action Group. Mr I Pick, the applicant’s agent, submitted a written submission in support of the application that was read to the meeting by the legal adviser to the Committee.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Hewitt, spoke on the application.
She made the following principal comments:
· In weighing the benefits of the scheme against the adverse impacts, the benefits appeared to be solely to the applicant. The adverse impacts included the effect on air and water quality and the visual impact on the landscape and therefore on the sustainability of the community.
· She questioned the statement in the officer report that the proposed buildings fell under any trigger sizes that would require an assessment for air pollution emissions. Regard should be had to the combined increase in floorspace the proposal entailed, given that the barns were going to be contiguous with each other.
· Account should be taken of the wider and cumulative activity on the farm given the sensitivity of the site, sitting in the valley bottom, source of the River Dore.
· A slurry management programme should have been submitted. She was concerned that the increase in livestock numbers would have an adverse effect on the SSSI and River Dore.
· The officer report cited policy SD3: sustainable water management and water resources. The development considerably increased the roof surface area but there was no calculation of this and the consequences of the rainwater run-off. There was no water management programme.
· Heavy rain had eroded and badly damaged the road surface of Scar Lane making it impassable to traffic. The Bage Farm sat alongside Scar Lane below the source of the River Dore which ran around the perimeter of the farmyard. On a visit, she had seen large piles of uncovered manure in the field opposite the farm on the other side of Scar Lane which was next to the river
· Natural England’s MAGIC website providing data on the natural environment identified the area in which the Bage Farmstead sits as a high priority area for catchment sensitive farming. It was in a water quality priority area. High priority issues at the site were identified as: surface water nitrates, sediment issues, phosphate issues, and flood risk management. It also identified a high level of groundwater vulnerability to a pollutant discharged at ground level on the hydrological, geological, hydrogeological and soil properties.
· The proposal appeared contrary to policy SD4: development should not undermine the achievement of water quality targets for rivers within the county.
· Residents ... view the full minutes text for item 118.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date of next meeting – 24 June 2020