To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Stone.

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

No substitutes were present at the meeting.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Stef Simmons declared a personal interest in agenda item no. 6,  application 231390, Land to the South of Peterstow Gas Compressor. The site was approximately 2 miles from Cllr Simmons home but the impacts of the site on her property were not deemed significant.

Councillor Simeon Cole declared that he had received a telephone call from a representative of the applicant for agenda item no. 6, application 231390, Land to the South of Peterstow Gas Compressor, on the evening before the committee meeting but had not entered into a discussion about the application.

Councillor Peter Hamblin declared that he had received a telephone call from a representative of the applicant for agenda item no. 6, application 231390, Land to the South of Peterstow Gas Compressor, on the evening before the committee meeting but had not entered into a discussion about the application.

Councillor Richard Thomas declared that he had received a telephone call from a representative of the applicant for agenda item no. 6, application 231390, Land to the South of Peterstow Gas Compressor, on the evening before the committee meeting but had not entered into a discussion about the application.

Councillor Bruce Baker declared that he had received a telephone call from a representative of the applicant for agenda item no. 6, application 231390, Land to the South of Peterstow Gas Compressor, on the evening before the committee meeting but had not entered into a discussion about the application.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January be approved.

Installation of an energy storage system, substation and associated works.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Dave Davies left the committee to act as the adjoining ward member for the following application.

The Principal Planning Officer minerals and waste provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Roe spoke on behalf of Peterstow Parish Council, Mr Wheeler, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Turner, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that she was speaking on behalf of local residents and Peterstow Parish who opposed the application. The parish council had considered the application and had determined that the development was not in a suitable location. It was noted that the landscape officer had made an objection to the application which remained unresolved. The impact of the application on the landscape was contrary to core strategy policies SS7, LD 1, LD2 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF. The location of the site was in a steep field and significant earth moving would be required. This would result in significant change to the character of the area. The development represented a major and adverse impact on the landscape and the local right of way. The application proposed the use of grade 2 agricultural land. This would result in the loss of arable land and was therefore contrary to core strategy policy SS7 and paragraph 174 B of the NPPF. The battery storage site would be located next to a gas line; this was hazardous and posed significant safety risks. It was noted that there were water tanks on site in case of fire but these would only discharge water flow for two hours; there was concern that there would be insufficient capacity to address larger fires. The Environment Agency provide advice that such proposals should not be situated near to rivers however the application site was close to local water courses which fed the River Wye. The application was contrary to the neighbourhood development plan policies PTS 1, 2, 3 and 17. It was contended that the application was not in the right place, represented a loss of farmland, contributed to the industrialisation of the area and therefore posed an adverse impact on the landscape.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the adjoining local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the importance of the application to contribute towards energy storage and renewable energy was acknowledged however it was questioned whether the application was in the right location due to the loss of farmland and the impact on the landscape.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee. Some members of the committee supported the application as an important element of the local electricity infrastructure and did not consider the impact of the development upon the landscape to be adverse. Other members of the committee considered the impact of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Proposed erection of 20 dwellings, with associated new access (via Tump Lane), car parking arrangements, communal house, new POS (extension of existing play area) and new stretches of footpath with passing places (north and west bound along Tump Lane).

Application approved with a change to the conditions.

Councillor Jennie Bartlett acted as local ward member for the application below.  She was acting as a proxy for the local ward member for Birch  who had declared an interest in the application.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr James, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Ms Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the proxy local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the application proposed a co-housing model which incorporated affordable housing elements with a priority for local residents of Much Birch. The development would contribute to the overall housing strategy in Herefordshire and locally, in accordance with the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) policy MB9. The development was environmentally sympathetic, existing planting would be maintained and additional planting would be provided on site. There would be an extension to the childrens’ play area and new equipment would be provided as part of the application. During the consultation period the applicant had replied positively to correspondence from consultees and to all queries received. Although there was no immediate plan to adopt the internal road as part of local authority highways it would be built to a high standard that could be adopted in future if appropriate. As part of the application, improvements to highway safety along Tump Lane had been proposed including a new footway. This was in accordance with NDP policy MB1. The applicant had attempted to address all concerns regarding the development including objections to the loss of garages which had been mitigated by the provision of new parking spaces on the site. There was a good level of support for the application and the site formed part of NDP policy MB8. The local parish council had no objections to the proposal and no objections had been raised at the parish council meeting at which the application was considered. The principle for development on the site had been established, the conditions provided a good framework to regulate the development and support was expressed for the production of a construction management plan.

The committee debated the application. There was support for the application across the committee. The committee raised the importance of protecting the existing play area during construction and the inclusion of a condition relating to EV charging on the site.

The proxy local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She explained that the protection of the existing play area during construction was welcomed and the proposal included provision for 8 electric charging points in the communal parking area.

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and Councillor Dave Davis seconded a motion that the application be approved with a change to the conditions to protect the existing play area during construction and to require the provision of EV charging points.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Development of 44 dwellings.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr White spoke on behalf of Weston under Penyard parish council and Ms McPherson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that an earlier application concerning the site proposed a controlled crossing across the A40. The current application should contain an identical provision in order to protect local residents from Penyard Gardens and the proposed development. The crossing would protect local residents from significant highway safety risks posed by the road. The road was straight and vehicles had been recorded travelling in excess of 70 MPH and sometimes 100 MPH in the 30 MPH speed limit zone. A pedestrianised crossing was a much wanted and needed element of the earlier application which had now been removed from the current application. The current application contained a roundabout which was positioned off line from the existing road and was intended to deflect and slow cars. However, the position of the roundabout would not deflect or slow traffic travelling from Gloucester. The effectiveness of the roundabout had also been questioned in the applicant’s own assessments. The local parish council had asked for a review of the roundabout but this had been refused. The inclusion of a roundabout in preference to a signalised crossing in the application was considered a cost saving measure. It was requested that a pedestrianised crossing should be required as part of the application which should be refused until such a measure was included.

The committee debated the application. There was division among members of the committee regarding the process to be followed to consider and potentially implement a signalised pedestrian crossing on the A40. The committee considered the importance of the roundabout in slowing traffic and discussed the preferred location of a pedestrianised crossing to protect the highway safety of local residents and contribute to an effective traffic calming scheme. The committee considered the heads of terms to be incorporated in the section 106 agreement, the transport contribution in the heads of terms which could be allocated towards a pedestrian crossing and the road safety audit. It was the contention of some members of the committee that the application should not be approved without the inclusion of pedestrian crossing whilst other members of the committee felt that the provision of a crossing should be taken forward as part of the section 106 agreement process following approval of the application.

The Development Manager Service Manager explained that the earlier application had concerned outline permission for the site and a crossing had been included in drawings but the crossing had not been secured in the section 106 agreement or in conditions. Funding had already been secured in the heads of terms towards the transport contribution, £86,000, which could be allocated to works for a pedestrian crossing but it was acknowledged that additional funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement two storey self build/custom build dwelling with garage.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer provided a presentation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Jones, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and a statement was read on behalf of the applicant’s agent, Mr Baume, in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained the application was located in a distinctive part of Hereford with a mixture of different styles and character of houses. There were three key considerations with the current application, design, scale and location. It was noted that the City Council was not positive about the design of the house. The proposed was striking and substantially larger than the existing dwelling. Although the current house was not small it did not dominate its location. The proposed property was much bigger and closer to the road. The proposed dwelling would also be closer to the neighbouring property, number 66, which would be overlooked and imposed upon. The new house would impose upon the street frontage, the local area and other local properties. Due to the substantially negative impact of the proposed house the application should be refused.

The committee debated the application. There was division among members of the committee. The majority of the members deemed the application acceptable; contrary to this support other members did not support the demolition of an existing and habitable property.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and Councillor Bruce Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer's recommendations.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions or amendments to the suggested conditions in the report that are considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

Standard conditions

Proposed two storey extension.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member provided a statement to be read to the committee. In summary, she explained that there were no objections to the application.

The committee debated the application.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

2.         Wildlife informative

The Authority would advise the applicant (and their contractors) that they have a legal Duty of Care as regards wildlife protection. The majority of UK wildlife is subject to some level of legal protection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.