Development of grass and all weather sports pitches, clubhouse, indoortraining building, car parking and landscaping supported by enabling residential development of 190 units

Approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation, subject to there being no further representations raising new material planning considerations received by the end of the consultation period.

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.  In addition, the case officer recommended a further revision to last two sentences of the first reason for refusal which was changed to read:

It is considered the development will be visually intrusive, will result in the permanent loss of a significant area of orchard which is a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat, and will adversely erode the landscape character of the site and setting of the city.  As such the development is contrary to policies S7, LA2, LA3, NC6, H7, and RST 10 of the UDP and advice within PPS7 and PPS9.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Townson, representing Hampton Bishop Parish Council, and Mr McLellan and Mr Keme, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Griffiths, the applicant, spoke in support.

Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, thanked the case officer for a detailed report and reserved his right to address the committee until after the debate had taken place.

Members opened the debate by thanking the case officer for producing a thorough report. It was also noted that there had been a great deal of useful and detailed additional information circulated to members by all parties involved. It was accepted that the application was finely balanced between the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan policies and the housing needs of the County. The benefits to Hereford Rugby Club were also noted.

Members discussed the concerns of the local residents in respect of flooding at Hampton Bishop. It was noted that a great deal of work had been undertaken to address the flooding issue in the area and that the proposed development would not exacerbate the situation. It was also noted that due to the proposed layout of the site the housing element of the application would be closer to Tupsley than Hampton Bishop and should therefore not be considered as development in open countryside.

Members also discussed the orchard. It was noted that 60% of the orchard was being retained which was welcomed. Members also noted that UDP policies LA2 and LA3 had been quoted in the officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application. Members noted that the orchard was not protected and could be removed at any time by the land owner if he so wished. Members felt that the provision of a section 106 agreement could provide more certainty over the protection of the orchard.

In respect of housing the committee noted that there were over 5000 homeless people within the county and that there was a need for 1884 new homes in Hereford City alone. Members felt that the specification of the homes to sustainable level 4 was welcomed and also noted that there was an acceptable level of affordable homes within the development. Members also noted that the revised scheme included a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50