Apologies were received from Councillor AJW Powers.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor AJW Powers.

8. N123316/F - LOWER HENGOED, HUNTINGTON, KINGTON, HR5 3QA.

Councillor AM Atkinson, Non-Pecuniary, One of the directors of Haygrove is a customer of the Councillor.

9. S122524/F - FERRYMEAD, 14 VILLA STREET, HEREFORD, HR2 7AY.

Councillor PA Andrews, Non-Pecuniary, the Councillor knows a number of residents of Villa Street.

10. 131292/FH - THE HOLT, VILLA STREET, HEREFORD, HR2 7AY.

Councillor PA Andrews, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor knows a number of residents of Villa Street.

11. 130541/O - THE PADDOCK OFF PERRYSTONE LANE, TUPSLEY, HEREFORD.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The applicant is an acquaintance of the Councillor.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2013.

A member of the Committee advised of a typographical error on page 10 of the minutes. He requested that at bullet point 5, where reference was made to the ratio between housing an employment land, 8/20 be replaced by 80/20.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Proposed outline permission for a residential development of 15 no. dwellings with associated infrastructure including alterations on A438 + drainage and landscaping with all matters reserved except for access.

The application was refused 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Geeson, representing Breinton Parish Council and Col. Farnes, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Tagg, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor RI Matthews, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The concerns of the local residents and Parish Council should be noted.

·         Three previous applications on the site had been refused at appeal.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy H7, although its standing under the National Planning Policy Framework was noted.

·         The application should be considered on its merits and full consideration should be given to the impact resulting from the development.

·         The access and impact on the highway make the application unacceptable.

·         There had been a number of unrecorded accidents over the previous years.

·         The layby was extremely well used and its removal would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

·         The application was contrary to UDP policies DR3 and DR4.

·         In December 2012 the ditch had flooded resulting in 18 inches of water entering neighbouring resident’s homes.

·         The Council engineers had historically noted that there was a problem with drainage in the area.

·         There was nowhere for the water to go at the point where the culvert terminated at 304-306 Kings Acre Road.

·         Public footpaths in the area had also been flooded.

·         Local residents had reported issues with insurance companies due to the flooding concerns in the area.

·         The report refers to drains and ditches that do not exist.

·         Wyevale had expressed their concerns in an email and stated that they objected to the application.

·         It was noted that the report which the housing shortfall figures had been based on was a report up to the end of 2011, what was the actual shortfall now.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee speaking in objection to the application. Concerns in respect of the surface water issues, drainage issues, the closure of the layby and the decision to locate the proposed play facility some distance away at Westfaling Street were all expressed.

Further debate took place in respect of the flooding issues on the site. One Member voiced his concern in respect of the proposed ditches and balancing ponds and stated that their presence clearly indicated that there was an issue with drainage on the site. He also expressed concern regarding the removal of trees and shrubs from the site and questioned whether the application was in fact sustainable. Another member echoed the concerns in respect of drainage and advised the applicant to consider a wet drainage system and the use of porous surfaces to assist in alleviating the current drainage problems. She also raised concern regarding the loss of the badger setts on the site.

Another member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Erection of polytunnels to cover cherry orchard and construction of a balance pond.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss Watson, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hammond, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Hope, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There had been 120 letters of objection and 50 letters of support for the application, however Huntington only had an electoral roll of 88.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework supported sustainable economic growth; the expansion and diversification in agriculture; and also stated that the Council should seek to approve sustainable development.

·         The Council’s officers did not object to the application.

·         There was no evidence to suggest that polytunnels affected tourism.

The debate was opened with a member noting that he was disappointed that the cherry trees had already been planted prior to planning permission being granted. He also noted the concerns of the local residents in response to comments regarding the lack of local employment opportunities, however he considered that in his experience with fruit farms in his area, local people did not apply for the jobs when they were advertised. In summing up he drew Members attention to the time limited nature of the application and considered that it should be approved.

Members discussed the application and voiced some concern in respect of the proposed landscaping condition. They noted that screening could take some time to mature and requested that mature screening be incorporated to reduce any impact on the neighbouring dwellings.

There was some debate in respect of the possible impact the application would have on tourism in the area. It was noted that tourism bought £412,000,000 into the Herefordshire economy in 2012 and that this should not be jeopardised through any development.

In response to the points raised, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Transportation Manager had not objected to the applications and that workers were currently being transported from Ledbury to a neighbouring site, therefore traffic movements would not increase. He also advised that landscaping, as well as a 30m buffer zone, had been offered by the applicant. Members noted the condition and requested that any landscaping had to have an immediate effect.

Another Member of the Committee had concerns in respect of the application and its impact on the neighbouring bed and breakfast business. He asked Members to consider all of the local businesses that could be affected by the proposed polytunnels. He noted the Officer’s comments but stated that there would be additional vehicular movements as workers would still need to be transported between the two sites. He also expressed concerns regarding landscaping and questioned whether the polytunnels would ever be able to blend into the landscape.

Some further concern was expressed in respect of highway movements with members noting that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Change of use of dwelling into 3 no. apartments.

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

The Chairman advised that agenda items 9 and 10 were neighbouring dwellings and that the applications had both been submitted by the same person. He therefore agreed to consider both items together but took two separate votes and allowed separate public speaking times for both applications.

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 accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Tillett, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ballantyne, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AN Bridges and PJ Edwards, two of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had highlighted the issues at the site.

·         The Transport Manager’s comments were not agreed with.

·         The dwelling was located on a popular route to and from Rivermead Primary School.

·         The Council encouraged people to cycle yet this application impacted on the cycle route from Belmont to the City.

·         The application should not have been granted for the original dwelling in 2002.

·         There was a risk of flooding in the area.

·         Could the 2 ½ storey dwelling be converted easily, would there be appropriate emergency access?

·         Unrealistic to expect all of the dwellings to have just one car each.

·         The third parking space was proposed to be between the two dwellings, how would this be controlled if one of the dwellings was sold?

·         The Planning Inspector had upheld decisions to refuse planning permission in the area previously.

·         The public access to the river would be blocked.

·         The position of the strengthening wall would result in the back end of the vehicle being in the cycle lane.

·         The application was contrary to S1, T11 and DR3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The debate was opened with a Councillor speaking in support of the application. He was surprised that the dwelling had been empty since it was built in 2002 and was of the opinion that the application would bring an empty building back into use. He noted that there would be either 6 or 7 parking spaces on the two sites and considered this to be sufficient. He did request an additional condition regarding a fence between the two dwellings in order to give a clear visual separation in respect of parking provision.

The issue of the dwelling being used as a house of multiple occupancy if the application was refused was discussed. It was noted that no planning permission would be required to use the house as an HMO. One member noted that a HMO was similar to a single household and would benefit from lower vehicular movements than the three separate households being created under the proposed application. He considered that the proposed application would result in an over intensification.

Members continued to discuss the application and had concern in respect of the application. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposed alterations to driveway.

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

Due to the link between this item and the previous agenda item the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation was combined.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Tillett, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ballantyne, the applicant, spoke in support.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

Informative:

1.         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

Outline application for 17 no. affordable dwellings.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs McCarthy, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hooper, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The detailed specification of the dwellings would be forthcoming when a full application was submitted.

·         The applicant should be commended for submitting an application for solely affordable housing.

The debate was opened with a Member speaking in support of the application. She noted that the application was solely for affordable housing but stated that this should not mean low quality housing. She advised the applicant to investigate the possibility of sustainable features for the dwellings when the full application was submitted.

In response to a question regarding the possible adoption of the public highway, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Council could not insist that the highway was adopted but that they could ask for the applicant to ensure that it was to an adoptable standard.

The Development Manager advised that the construction of the houses would be to code level 3 and that this would form part of the enhanced Section 106 agreement.

Councillor Hardwick was given the opportunity to close the debate. He chose to make no additional statement.

RESOLVED

That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in accordance with the attached Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         The development shall not commence until approval of the ‘reserved matters’ has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To enable the local planning authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development in order to secure compliance with policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.         Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed in accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning act 1990.

3.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: Required to be imposed in accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning act 1990.

4.         H03 Visibility splays

5.         H06 Vehicular access construction

6.         H18 On site roads - submission of details

7.         H20 Road completion in 2 years

8.         H21 Wheel washing

9.         H26 Access location

10.       H27 Parking for site operatives

11.       G04 Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained

12.       G10 Landscaping scheme

13.       G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

14.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Part retrospective change of use of rearing of game birds, cold storage of associated equipment, storage of animal feeds and agricultural chemicals, seed and fertiliser, including the erection of 2 feed silos.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a site inspection.

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 accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Coleman, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         A site visit would be beneficial.

·         The site was close to a number of residential properties.

·         There were health and environmental issues.

·         Tarrington Parish Council had objected to the application.

The Committee agreed that a site visit would be beneficial and moved that a visit be undertaken on all three grounds as set out in the Council’s constitution.

RESOLVED

THAT a site inspection be undertaken on the following grounds:

1.         The character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration.

2.         A judgement is required on visual impact.

3.         The setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered, and cannot reasonably be made without visiting the site in question.

Date of next site inspection:   6 August 2013

Date of next meeting:             7 August 2013