Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow, A Seldon and WC Skelton.

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

Councillor D Summers substituted for Councillor A Seldon and Councillor SD Williams for Councillor WC Skelton.

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

Agenda item 4: 160852 – Caldicott Farm, Broad Oak, Hereford

Councillor EJ Swinglehurst declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew the applicant.

Agenda item 6: 170677 – Land at Castle End, Lea, Ross-on-Wye

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

Retrospective engineering works to provide extension to slurry lagoon.

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

(Retrospective engineering works to provide extension to slurry lagoon.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application,

He provided additional information on the proximity and status of adjacent listed buildings, and the legislative framework and statutory obligations and case law relating to considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affected a listed building or its setting.  Officers had concluded by the nature of the proposal, a hole in the ground, and its location, away from and separated from the listed buildings by existing modern agricultural development, that this context and lack of any interrelationship resulted in there being no material harm or impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

He also reported that there were no recorded boreholes within close proximity of the site. There was a borehole over 800m to the west of the site.  He added that the lagoon would not have an artificial liner. Test results including soil analysis carried out on behalf of the applicants identified that the site was capable of construction without the need for one.  The Environment Agency had been consulted as part of the process and had advised that they were satisfied with the test results.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs K Greenow, Clerk to Garway Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr H Cripwell, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr E Partridge, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Chairman read out a statement on behalf of the local ward member, Councillor DG Harlow, who had been unable to attend the meeting.

The principal points in the statement were as follows:

·        The application had raised strong feelings locally.  At a recent meeting of Garway parish council many of the Broad Oak community had attended and expressed their opposition. Balancing this, the applicants must be allowed to run their business as they had successfully been doing for many years.

·        On a site visit he had found  no evidence of the slurry lagoons having overflowed. The farm seemed to be well managed and the slurry lagoons were a fair distance from the road.

·        He had the following concerns:

·        The retrospective nature of the application.  The Council needed to consider how it could dissuade such behaviour.

·        If permission was granted, landscaping must be of the highest standard to mitigate the concerns of the local residents.

·        The issue of whether the lagoon was to be covered needed addressing

·        The long journey by road from the dairy farm in Buckholt to the lagoon in Broad Oak.

·        The Parish Council had made some sound observations and highlighted the concern that water quality may be affected in the immediate area. He noted that the applicants themselves obtained their own drinking water from a borehole on site.  He was advised that officers not identified any concerns on this point.

·        The report addressed his concerns about landscaping and he was satisfied that this should negate many of the local concerns once fully grown out.

·        Recommendation 10 in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of new dwelling within landscaped setting.

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

(Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of new dwelling within landscaped setting.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms L Tucker, the applicant, spoke in support of her application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer, spoke on the application.  He noted that although the proposal was a departure from policy the Parish Council had no objection to the application. He considered that the proposal would represent betterment to the site and should be approved.

The applicant had outlined her personal circumstances in her speech to the Committee and Members reflected on a number of recent applications they had considered where it had been asserted that weight should be given to personal circumstances.  It was noted, however, that in this instance the report made no reference to the applicant’s personal circumstances.

The quality of design of the proposal and the example it set was stressed.  It was considered that the proposal would enhance the area.

The Acting Development Manager emphasised that the application was not founded on the applicant’s personal circumstances. The application had environmental benefits and paragraph 6.19 of the report summarised the reasons why officers supported approval of the application as a departure from policy.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his view that the proposal would represent a betterment of the site.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         C01 – Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         C07 – Development in accordance with approved plan and details

3.         CAD – Access Gates, 5m

4.         CAE – Vehicular access construction

5.         CAH – Driveway gradient

6.         CAK – Parking and turning

7.         CE6 – Water efficiency

8.         The recommendations (mitigation, protection and working methods) as identified in the ecological report by Clarke Webb Ecology dated June 2016 shall be fully implemented as stated, unless otherwise required to obtain a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence, and agreed in writing by the planning authority.

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. NERC Act 2006.

9.         Prior to commencement of the development, and based on the ecological report by Clarke Webb Ecology dated June 2016 and the outline landscape plan ref 15/768.27, a detailed habitat enhancement scheme integrated with a detailed landscape scheme and accompanied by a 10 year establishment and maintenance plan should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

            Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Policy LD2 of the Herefordshire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Application for up to 10 new residential properties, vehicle turning, manoeuvring and landscaping.

The application was the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  The Committee agreed that if there had not been an appeal it would have been minded to refuse the application.

(Application for up to 10 new residential properties, vehicle turning, manoeuvring and landscaping.)

The Senior 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.

He clarified that it had been decided on 12 June that an appeal against non-determination was valid and would be heard by written representations.  The Committee could not determine the application but was being asked to express a view that would inform the Council’s approach at that appeal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Banner, of Lea Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr S Banner, Chairman of Lea Action Group, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        An appeal against the Committee’s refusal of an application for 14 dwellings had been dismissed by the Inspector on the basis of a lack of a unilateral undertaking or Section 106 agreement.  The current proposal for 10 homes required no S106 agreement.

·        There were no letters in support of the application.

·        Lea had already exceeded by far the minimum number of homes required to be built under the Core Strategy.

·        The site was on the fringe of the settlement and on the opposite side of the A40 to the primary school.  He considered it to be the most dangerous site in his ward.

·        It had been suggested that the applicant had not sent out the required certificate B notifications to adjoining landowners.  He questioned whether the application was therefore invalid.

·        Welsh Water had indicated that the site could not be brought into use before 31 March 2020.  There was therefore no urgency to consider the application.

·        Paragraph 6.14 of the report referred to the Council’s duty of care to assess the highway safety impact.  He had himself been afraid when alongside the road during a site visit.  It was on the opposite side of the road from the Primary School and he was concerned at the risk of a child running home unaccompanied crossing the road.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application points were made that the proposal represented over-development of Lea, that an appeal in 2013 for a single dwelling had been dismissed because of the effect the development would have on the character and appearance of the locality, and that there was a potential conflict with policy RA2 in that the proposal was not driven by housing need.

However, the principal concern related to highway safety.  It was noted that paragraph 6.13 of the report stated that in considering the earlier appeal the Inspector had concluded that the proposed development would not create unacceptable risk of harm to highway safety on the A40.

Members disputed the Inspector’s opinion and commented that since that decision a substantial number of homes had been approved in the area.  It was questioned what weight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Date of next site inspection – 11 July 2017

Date of next meeting – 12 July 2017