To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors RBA Burke, ME Cooper and PJ Watts. 

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

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

The following declaration of interest was made:

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 April 2008.

RESOLVED:   that the minutes of the meeting held on 09 April 2008 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 appeals for the northern area of Herefordshire.

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

Proposed change of use of site to international centre for birds of prey. Proposed aviaries; clinic/research building; toilet block; vehicular access and car park; porch to cafe/shop and associated works.

The Following updates were reported:

• Further letters of objection and/ or reservation had been received from the following (those marked with an * have previously made representation on this application):

These letters had reiterated concerns and objections listed in the committee report and had raised some additional issues, summarised as follows:

1)            The application lacks details on the increase in traffic movements to and from the site from visitors, staff, suppliers etc. The proposal will create a considerable volume of vehicle movements along this lightly trafficked road.

2)            Traffic levels are underestimated. Estimates of 20,000 are conservative but it will probably be 2-3 times that.

3)            The pre application presentation by the applicant did not fully explain the extent and scale of the proposals.

4)            Any development that adds to the flooding causes concern to those affected. The EA have failed to consider the effect of the development on nearby properties, only the site itself. Can the Councils aim for a Sustainable drainage system actually be achieved? Doubtful that this could be dealt with by way of a condition given the high standard of drainage required. Drainage is very crucial to this proposal and a sustainable drainage system should form part of the application.

5)            Proximity of village to Conservation Area and the views on the approach and when leaving the village are very important and have not been fully considered. 

6)            The buildings are of substantial structure and are made more prominent by their bulk, colour and close positioning. Landscaping would take decades to reduce the impact and would never be effective in adequately softening the development. The development would be substantial structures made more prominent by their bulk, ridge, prominence, colour and close positioning.

7)            Concern about not being notified of the proposal and the procedures of the Council blocking residents

8)            The immediate road frontage by the current entrance / exit floods 2/3 times per year. The proposal states that storm water from some buildings will drain to the new lake. The intention is then to discharge the lake overflow directly to the river via a new drain under the road.

9)            Request that the application is scaled down and fully address the drainage issues

10)        What happens to the site if the business fails?

11)        Is it right to put a zoo on this rural site 250m from a conservation village?

12)        The marginal impact of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

Change of use of land for erection of five holiday chalets in landscaped gardens.

The Principal Planning Office reported the following updates:

The report omitted two letters of objection that were received within the consultation period. These were from:

• Mrs Bridget Batchelor, High View Farm, Aymestrey
• Mrs V M Thorpe, Yew Tree House, Lucton

These letters make the following points

• Notes that policy S1 states that developments should respect the needs of local communities and encourage greater self-sufficiency within local communities and should seek more equitable access for all sectors of the community to opportunities for homes

• Notes that policy S8 states that now facilities for tourism will be supported but they should contribute to local economic development, employment and community regeneration and that Tourism development should avoid or minimise intrusion on local communities

• Aymestrey and Mortimers Cross are small settlements. There are about 24 houses in Aymestrey and around 16 in Mortimers Cross (including 8 park homes). There are five holiday chalets in Aymestrey giving a ration of 5:24 or 1:5. It is argues that by creating such a high ratio of holiday lets by approving the development this would intrude on the local community and conflict with the aims of policy S8. The combined numbers of units between the application is too many for the community.

• The chalets would impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties with the comings and goings.

• There is no shop, no tourist based business (cycle or canoe hire, craft workshops, guided walks or pony trekking)

• The development does not offer any elements for developing facilities or attraction.

• There is no need for additional tourist accommodation. The character of the are is primarily agricultural – the proposed chalets would be inappropriate

• The access is onto the busy A4110 which is a busy junction used by lorries and the additional traffic movements would add to the complexity of the traffic movements at the crossroads.

• The site would be better used for affordable housing.

The Principal Planning Officer also reported that a further condition would be required to ensure that access to the public right of way near to the pub car park was kept clear. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Holland spoke on behalf of Aymestry Parish Council, Mrs B Batchelor spoke in objection to the application, and Mr P Williams, the applicant, spoke in support. 

In response to a question from the Local Ward Member, Councillor LO Barnett, the Legal Practice Manager outlined the Inspector’s conclusions in respect of a previous appeal for the site, where the application had been for eight holiday chalets.  Councillor Barnett felt that, contrary to the applicant’s observations, it was unclear whether the site could be described as “Brownfield”.  She acknowledged that the Appeal Inspector had felt that there were no issues regarding highway safety in the vicinity of the site, and stated that she could not support this view on the grounds that the Parish Council had felt that the road was dangerous and had made several requests for a speed restriction to be imposed.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

Proposed use of land for the siting of seasonal agricultural workers accommodation (caravans and pods), construction of amenity building and associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

A further letter has been received from the agent for the application pointing out the following:

1    there is a significant capital investment involved in the development and it is common sense that the applicant would not seek to provide these facilities unless there is a genuine commercial need for them now and for the foreseeable future.

2    the failure of the applicant to secure planning permission for the polytunnels does not mean that the need for facilities for the workforce ceases. Indeed, other production methods (such as the use of micro cloches) may increase the need.

3    the officer's appraisal fails to recognise that other growing methods are already being used at Wickton and Wellington.

4    the officer's appraisal misses the fundamental point that picking is staggered throughout the year and the maximum total of workers required is not achieved simply by multiplying the figures of hectares in use by the number workers per hectare.

5    It should therefore be clear that there is a bona fide need for the development and the absence of planning permission for the polytunnels does not diminish that need.

6    The applicant considers that the development complies with policy H8 (i.e. residential development in the open countryside for which there is an agricultural need). In any event a time limited permission (e.g. five years or less) could be granted enabling monitoring of the effects and the need.

7     In any event it is open to the discretion of the Committee to defer the item for more evidence of need to be provided if the Committee is not satisfied that adequate evidence of need has been provided.

These comments are reinforced by a letter received from the Facilities and Welfare Director of the applicant's company pointing out the need for the workforce and the commitment of the company to provide the best quality facilities. It is his firm view, on behalf of the applicants, that the Arrow Fisheries site remains the best option for this essential accommodation and that further safeguards in respect of the wildlife interests on the site can be secured.

The Principal Planning Officer had provided the following response:

The calculation of the need given in the report is based solely (and accurately) on the information which was submitted at the time. The number of workers per hectare, as submitted by the applicant, gave no allowances for season working or other constraints which would reduce the total number. The applicant's offer to resubmit new and different figures may be helpful and would help to clarify the economic case for development based on current activity at Brierley, Ivington and Wickton.  However, the report as published acknowledges that there is a strong argument in favour of development based, inter-alia, on the premise that there is a need for a seasonal workforce to sustain soft fruit production on the various sites currently used by the applicant. That, however, is only part of the argument. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

Change of use of land from agricultural to residential.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the scale and extent of the fencing in place had constituted a change of use, and Conditions 1 and 2 in the report would need to be amended after the meeting, if planning permission were granted, to ensure that they were enforceable.  

Members felt that the application was necessary to avoid setting any precedents, and to maintain the rural aspect of the area.  They suggested that the Council’s policy on change of use should be made clear in the informatives to the planning permission. 

RESOLVED:   that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions (and subject to additional amendments to Conditions 1 and 2 , which were to be decided by the officer after the meeting):

1       A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2       Unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority, a new hedgerow shall be planted along the edge of the new boundary (i.e. northern and western sides and also outside of any new fencing/walling that may also be erected) of a species first agreed in writing by the local planning authority in the first planting season following the commencement of the residential use of the land.  In the event of this new hedgerow being seriously damaged or destroyed then it shall be replaced by a new hedgerow of the same species in the next planting season unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities and character of the surrounding rural area.

3       Before the use hereby approved commences and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority the existing newly erected fencing on the north and west boundaries of the site shall be repositioned within the application site (i.e. on the inside of  the new hedgerow required by condition 2) in accordance with details showing the new position to be first submitted to and be subject to the prior written approval of the local planning authority.  Full details of any alternative fencing would also need to be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority prior to its erection.

         Reason: In the interests of protecting the visual amenities and character of the surrounding rural area.

Informatives:

1       N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

2       N03 - Adjoining property rights

3       The applicants should be aware that this planning permission does not override any civil/legal rights enjoyed by adjacent property owners and that any development which physically affects or encroaches onto any adjoining property may well affect these rights.  If in doubt the applicants are advised to seek legal advice on the matter and contact the owners of adjacent properties where these rights may be affected prior to undertaking any development.

4       N14 - Party Wall Act 1996

5       N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

4 June 2008

2 July 2008

04 June 2008.