To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors J.W. Edwards, G. Lucas, and P.G. Turpin.

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

There were no declarations of interest made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27th September, 2006.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27th September, 2006 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To note the contents of the attached report of the Head of Planning Services in respect of the appeals received or determined for the southern area of Herefordshire.

The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the southern area of Herefordshire.

Extension, new chimney, new double garage and workshop.

Extension, new chimney, new double garage and workshop.

The Planning Officer reported the receipt of comments from the parish Council who unanimously supported the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Herman, the applicant, spoke in support of her application.

Councillor J.G. Jarvis felt that the dwelling looked unbalanced at present and felt that granting the application would improve the appearance. He noted that there were no objections from local residents or the Parish Council and felt that the application should be approved.

Councillors J.B. Williams felt that the Planning Policy should not be disregarded and believed that granting the application could result in an influx of similar applications.

The Southern Team Leader advised the sub-committee in respect of the UDP policy regarding extensions. He said that the application clearly did not comply with the policy and had therefore been recommended for refusal. He noted that the current proposal was the 4th extension to the dwelling and felt that it could result in a detrimental affect to affordable housing in the area.

RESOLVED

The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to the conditions set out below (and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee.

            a) No conditions recommended

If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve the application to such conditions referred to above.

[Note:            Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]

Waste treatment (using an autoclave) & recycling facility, including construction of a new building.

Waste treatment (using an autoclave) & recycling facility, including construction of a new building.

The Chairman advised the Sub-Committee that the application had been approved by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee in March 2004 but the decision had since been quashed by the High Court after a Judicial Review thus resulting in the application being undetermined.  The Chairman outlined the arrangements for the meeting and stated that due to the public interest in the application, public speaking had been increased from 3 minutes to 10 minutes for the Parish Council, the objectors, and the applicant.

The Development Control Manager presented his report and said that 3 further letters of objection had been received from local residents. He also reported the receipt of comments from Eaton Bishop Parish Council which had been omitted from the report, and correspondence from Paul Keetch MP and Councillor P.G. Turpin, Chairman of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee, objecting to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for Public Speaking, Mrs. Yates, representing Madley Parish Council, spoke against the application. She expressed concerns about the environmental and ecological impact of the proposed scheme, the road safety issues that would arise because of the large number of heavy vehicles travelling to and from the site, the inadequate road network for such vehicles from the Greyfriars Bridge in Hereford to the site, the possible risk to the neighbouring Gelpack site and the unsuitable location for the site. She stated that a report commissioned for Madley Parish Council by TMS had highlighted a number of areas of concern in respect of highways and that the section 106 agreement only addressed one of the many pinch points along the suggested route.

Mr. Berry, Managing Director of Gelpack Ltd, also spoke against the application. He expressed concerns about the unproven technology being proposed by Estech Europe and the impact that approving the application could have on Gelpack as an employer in Herefordshire. He confirmed that 60% of Gelpack’s product output went to the food and pharmaceutical industry and that up to 200 jobs could be at risk if these major contracts were jeopardised by granting planning permission to Estech.

Mr. Rogers, representing members of the Waste Watchers group, felt that the report was prejudiced and that the Sub-Committee had not been provided with sufficient information to make a judgement on the application. He felt that the application should be deferred until all of the relevant information could be provided. He also had concerns regarding the ‘fibre’ produced as a result of the autoclave process. He felt that the application should not be granted until a suitable market for the fibre had been identified. He also voiced his concerns regarding the ecological and environmental impact of the proposed scheme as well as road safety issues.

Mr. Fowler-Wright of MPD Ltd, the site owners, and Mr. Craven, Chairman of Estech Europe Ltd, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Fowler-Wright said that he felt that Estech had been open and honest about the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.