To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Taylor.

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

Councillor Foxton acted as a substitute for Councillor Taylor.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November be approved.

Proposed erection of 7 townhouses with associated development.

Application refused, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior 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 Milln spoke on behalf of Herefordshire City Council, Mr Irwin, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Eacock, applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the determination of the application was on a fine balance which was demonstrated by the significant number of relevant planning policies relating to the application and the large number of proposed conditions attached to the recommendation. The application site was: set within a conservation area; was of archaeological importance; and close to a scheduled monument and grade 2 listed buildings. A full archaeological survey as required in the conditions demonstrated the importance of the site. The heritage impact assessment undertaken was considered flawed and had been challenged by an independent assessment. It was felt that the proposal was contrary to core strategy policies LD4 and SS6 and national planning policy framework paragraph 219 as the proposal did not protect, conserve or enhance heritage assets nor their setting. The proposed site was set in flood zone 3 and it was concerning that the applicant was challenging the Environment Agencies requirement under the section 106 agreement relating to flood risk infrastructure. Recent examples of flooding from the river Wye militated against applications within flood zones. There was a narrow access to the site which would cause difficulty for construction vehicles and fire tenders would not be able to access the development. Visibility from the access was very poor and located in an area heavily used by cars and pedestrians. Further, the proposed access would result in the loss of parking spaces which would place greater pressure on problematic parking already evident in the local area. Arrangements for the access were in conflict with core strategy policy MT1. An outstanding issue concerned ownership of the site which would need to be resolved before any development took place. The impact of the development on the local environment and the landscaping proposed in mitigation was not felt to be sufficient and therefore contrary to core strategy policy LD3.

The committee debated the application and was divided as to the acceptability of the proposals; the following principal points were raised:

• There was a need for more two-bedroom houses locally;
• The development was in a sustainable location with easy access to the town centre and good walking and cycling access.
• There were concerns regarding the access and the impact on highway safety in the local area;
• There was concern regarding the scale, design, siting and massing on the site. It was felt that this would have an adverse impact on the conservation area. There was no landscaping plan and no landscaping mitigation was proposed with the application. It was not considered that there was a suitable transition from the development site on to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The proposed erection of 2 no. dwellings and associated works including access, landscaping and drainage.

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

Councillor Cole acted as local ward member for the following application

The development manager 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, a statement was read on behalf of Walford Parish Council, Mr Saunders, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Thomas, applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor Jacqueline Carwardine left the meeting at 11:13 a.m.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained the application was contrary to Walford neighbourhood development plan (NDP) policy 17 and core strategy policy RA2 as the proposal did not meet the local housing need of 2/3 bedroom houses. Furthermore, the application did not meet the requirements of NDP policies 2 and 4 and core strategy policies SS6 and LD1 as the proposed houses did not preserve or enhance the character of the area. The local area was adversely affected by in-filling and urbanisation. The current application was prominent in the landscape and the design of the houses was urban, out of keeping and dominant in the local setting. The council's principal environment officer had expressed concerns regarding the domineering nature of the houses and the adverse effects on the local landscape. The application proposed housing which did not meet the local housing need, which was contrary to core strategy policies SS2 and RA2 and NDP policy 17. The size, scale, bulk and design of the houses posed a harmful impact on the landscape which was contrary to core strategy policies SS6, RA1, RA2, LD1 and NDP policies 2 and 4.

The committee debated the application and was divided as to the acceptability of the proposals; the following principal points were raised:

• The application proposed two additional dwellings in the local area which was not felt to be excessive and did not pose an adverse impact on the local landscape;
• It was doubted whether the construction of 2/3 bedroom houses or affordable housing in the area was viable;
• The site was allocated for development in the NDP but cumulative development in the area was a concern;
• The proposed houses were felt to be in keeping with the style locally and the topography of the area;
• The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 was raised and the greater weight that needed to be given to protection of national landscapes;
• The visibility of the developments in the local setting was raised and it was queried weather the landscape and visual impacts assessment (LVIA) undertaken on the application was credible given it had not used views from Coppett Hill;
• The slope of Lays Hill was highly visible in the surrounding area with the driveway proposed and vehicles providing reflective surfaces which would impact negatively on the national landscape;
• It was noted that the size and scale of the houses had been adjusted during the application process and the number of houses proposed on site had been reduced from three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Proposed alterations to and change of use of existing building to allow occupation for Class E(b)/sui generis (hot food takeaway) use, including the provision of designated car parking area and alterationsto existing elevations.

Application approved, in accordance with the officer recommendation and a change to to the conditions.

Councillor Mark Woodall acted as local ward member for the following application.

The senior 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 Ms Hannah, spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council and Mr Peach, the applicant's agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Dave Davis left the meeting at 12:24 p.m.

In accordance with the council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the application saved a prominent and historic building in Leominster. The new restaurant in Leominster would also help to create footfall in the town and provide a social location for people to meet in the town. There were concerns regarding the application relating to traffic, litter, pests, noise and impact on dietary health. A number of mitigations or conditions were in place to overcome concerns relating to noise, litter and pests. However, concerns regarding the impact on public health posed by fast food remained. It was understood that the food franchise responsible for the application was developing a healthier menu. It was noted that there were a number of other takeaways in the locality but the present application was exempt from rules relating to the concentration of fast food restaurants due to its location within the town centre. The additional highway movements that the restaurant would generate would be in a location which was already busy with traffic attending supermarkets and nearby car parks; the speed of cars within the area was generally slow. The small car park attached to the restaurant was not for customer parking and would ensure that there was no deliveries or service vehicles for the restaurant utilising the public highway. There was concern regarding the noise impact from the site, in particular deliveries occurring overnight causing a disturbance and adversely impacting residential amenity. It was requested that a condition be added to restrict nighttime delivery. It was explained that the building had been in a very poor condition and that the current proposal would ensure that the historic building was restored with elements that were sympathetic with the original design and distinctiveness of the building. It was noted that the proposal was compliant with the Leominster NDP.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the adjoining ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that a number of representations had been received locally for and against the application. It was pleasing the building would be restored and occupied and further applications that would make use of the foyer and frontage. Conditions concerning car parking at the rear of the building, noise, litter and pests were supported. The timings of deliveries to the store and the impact on local residential amenity were concerning. It was noted that the local water provider had recommended grease traps to avoid grease from the restaurant entering the local drainage system; a condition to require the installation of grease traps was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The erection of one self-build agricultural worker's dwelling and associated works.

Application refused, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation and a change to the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Baker acted as local ward member for the application below.

The senior 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 Hulse spoke on behalf of Bredenbury Group Parish Council and Mr Tompkins, 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 two generations of the same family lived on the farm. The younger generation now required a home on the farm to start a young family whilst managing the operation of the farm effectively. The conclusion of the rural planning appraisal that the farmer should live in Bromyard was not credible and were not supported. A house was required on the farm to respond to alarms from the chicken houses, protect livestock welfare and ensure bio security. The proposed home was set away from the main farm buildings to ensure the safety of a young family. Paragraph 84e of the NPPF allows for houses in the countryside where there is an essential need for an agricultural worker; the present application was in accordance with this paragraph. The committee was urged to approve the application.

The committee debated the application. The committee was assured that there was a need for the dwelling for the farm manager to be present on the site for the effective management of operations. There was however division among the members of the committee regarding the location of the proposed house. Some members of the committee were concerned that the positioning of the proposed house posed an unacceptable impact on the landscape and the proposed dwelling should be positioned in closer proximity to the established farmhouse and farm buildings on the farm.

Councillor Peter Hamblin proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion that the application be approved. The motion was withdrawn.

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

Councillor Woodall proposed and Councillor Foxton seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with case officer recommendation 2 only. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed development, due to its elevated and isolated location within the rural landscape, its detachment from existing built form, and its failure to reflect the historic pattern of development, would result in adverse impacts on the character and visual amenity of the area. For these reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policies RA4 and LD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, Policy BW&GB10 of the Bredenbury and District Group Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.