Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, JG Lester, RL Mayo, J Norris, and TL Widdows.

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

There were no named substitutes.

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

Agenda item 4 112834 The Court, Rectory Road, Hampton Bishop

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 5 150455 Land Adjoining Ivy Cottage, Ashton, Leominster

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the applicant.

Councillor PJ McCaull declared a non-pecuniary interest because he had served on Leominster District Council with the applicant in the 1970s.

The Chairman reported that Mrs D Klein, Principal Planning Officer, was leaving the authority.  He thanked her for her work on a difficult portfolio of applications and wished her all the best for the future.

Retention of on-farm anaerobic digester and associated ancillary works and equipment; alterations to former slurry lagoon to form a digestate store.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Retention of on-farm anaerobic digester and associated ancillary works and equipment; alterations to former slurry lagoon to form a digestate store.)

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Fleet spoke on behalf of local residents in objection to the application.  Mrs M Stoker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor J Hardwick, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

•           Planning permission had been granted for a significantly smaller plant.

•           The plant was being well managed and was environmentally sound.

•           No traffic to and from the plant currently used Mordiford Bridge. The main issue was the effect of farm traffic on Eign Road and Ledbury Road in Hereford with concerns about safety and disturbance, noting also that there were three nursing homes on Hampton Dene Road.  He noted that a draft traffic management plan had been drawn up. 

•           The applicant was seeking to provide a private road across his landholding which would avoid Hereford City Centre with an access point to the Ledbury Road at Tupsley.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

•           It was outrageous that a much larger plant had been constructed than planning permission had permitted, leading to the situation where a retrospective application for planning permission was now having to be considered.  The Principal Planning Officer acknowledged that the situation was regrettable.  However, the reality was that a large well run business with considerable capital invested within it was now in operation generating clean energy. She noted that if the business were to return to conventional farming this would generate additional traffic which would not be subject to any traffic management plan.

•           The development would have a huge impact but little community benefit except to its owner.

•           The main issue was the impact of farm traffic. The tractors and trailers used were of considerable size.  They could not use Mordiford Bridge and this meant that they had to use streets in the City Centre.  Concern was expressed that these large vehicles were being driven by young drivers without sufficient training and experience who were operating under pressure to meet deadlines.  This created a safety risk.

•           There was concern as to whether a traffic management plan would be effective.

•           Many other large vehicles transported material along Eign Road and Ledbury Road without incident and there was a need for perspective.

•           It was requested that the applicant should be encouraged to ensure that the drivers employed were trained to a high standard.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the draft traffic management plan included provision for guidance to drivers.  The applicant had indicated that he did not propose to employ young drivers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

Proposed supported living dwelling house and alteration of an existing vehicle crossover.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed supported living dwelling house and alteration of an existing vehicle crossover.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He noted that additional information had been circulated by the applicants relating to their personal circumstances.  However, no weight could be given to this information in considering the planning application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Poulton, Chairman of Luston Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr and Mrs King, the applicants, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor J Stone, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·         The applicants had sought to engage with officers at the pre-application stage.  An earlier application had been refused with location of the proposed dwelling being the main reason.

·         The applicants wished to remain in the locality despite deteriorating health.  The proposal was consistent with the Council’s housing policies aimed at helping older people to say in their homes.

·         There was no criticism of the design of the property or the materials to be used.  He considered, contrary to the report, that the proposal did have sufficient innovative elements to meet the requirements of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which provided that the development of new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there were special circumstances.

·         There was substantial support in the local community for the proposal including from the applicants’ GP.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal.

·         There were no letters of objection.

·         There was no objection from the Transport Manager.

·         The development was not isolated and was sustainable with many local amenities readily accessible.  The proposal therefore fulfilled the relevant considerations set out at paragraph 6.8 of the report used to determine whether a site represented a sustainable location, having regard to the NPPF and relevant policies.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         The proposal was consistent with the aim of enabling people to remain in their own homes within their local community.

·         The Parish Council supported the proposal and there were also 23 letters of support.

·         There were grounds to support the application having regard to the NPPF.  The proposal was sustainable and was of innovative design.

·         It was to be hoped that the Neighbourhood Plan would make provision for other residents facing similar circumstances.

The Development Manager commented that the applicants already had two properties on the site.  The application would provide a third dwelling.  The development was in the open countryside and was unsustainable.  The proposed building was over 300sqm and would be dominant in the landscape.  The proposal was a clear departure from the NPPF together with existing and emerging Council policies.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that the development was innovative and sustainable and had no adverse impacts.  There was considerable local support and no objections.  The Council should seek  ...  view the full minutes text for item 220.

Proposed new dwelling to support a family with local connections in Risbury.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed new dwelling to support a family with local connections in Risbury.)

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr W Jackson, Chairman of Humber, Ford and Stoke Prior Group Parish Council, spoke in support of the Scheme.  Mr P Lawley, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs S Wilson, the applicant, spoke in support.

The local ward member, Councillor JW Millar, was unable to attend the meeting because of a prior commitment on Council business.  He had submitted a statement to members of the Committee in advance of the meeting.  The Chairman allotted time for members and the public speakers to read the submission.

The local ward member made the following principal points in his submission:

·         The application was not about a house in the countryside, but about a family home for a local family which would enable them to more easily manage their livestock.

·         The building would be innovative, utilising the disused quarry owned by the applicants as a site, and using a range of green and sustainable building methods.

·         The dwelling would be well screened, and would result in no additional traffic as the applicants currently travelled regularly up and down Poplands Lane to visit their livestock.

·         The report did not give sufficient weight to reasons why the development might be advantageous to both the applicant and the community.

·         If the proposed amendments to the Core Strategy were agreed, this would result in some increased housing outside traditional settlement boundaries.   This should be considered to be emerging policy.

·         The concept of sustainability continued to be unclear.   The report referred to the poor pedestrian access to local facilities and services.   The village of Risbury had no such facilities or services which may be accessed by any resident other than by vehicular transport.  Sustainability was not just about access to facilities, but about the construction and intent for a dwelling.  The application met this test by having green and sustainable construction methods and enabling the applicants to manage their lives in a more sustainable way.

·         The Parish Council supported the application and regard should be had to its local knowledge and its full response set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·         He summarised the points made by those writing in support of the application and those writing in objection to it as set out at paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 of the report. 

·         He had sympathy with those living closest to the site but did not consider that the objections made refusal appropriate.   The site would be screened and the inconvenience to neighbours would be minimal.   The proposal was innovative and allowed a local family to more effectively and sustainably manage their livestock, whilst freeing up their former home.

·         On balance he therefore supported the application, which would deliver innovative design, add to the housing stock  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

Date of next site inspection – 15 June 2015 (provisional)

Date of next meeting – 16 June 2015 (provisional)