Apologies were received from Councillors KS Guthrie and WC Skelton.

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

None.

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

Agenda item 7:Unit 10, Walkers Green, Marden

Councillor Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest as a resident of Marden.

Agenda item 8: 3 Rocklands Cottages Bearwood Cottage Lane Goodrich

Councillors Cutter and Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor Newman declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Herefordshire Council nominated Director of Coppett Hill Trust Ltd.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

It was reported that following a change to the political proportionality of the Council, the It’s Our County Group had ceded one seat on the Committee to the Herefordshire Independent Group.  Councillor Seldon would therefore be leaving the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked Councillor Seldon for his contribution to the Committee.

Proposed erection of an agricultural building for free range egg production with associated feed bins and egg packing and storage building.

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

(Proposed erection of an agricultural building for free range egg production with associated feed bins and egg packing and storage building.)

The Development Manager (DM) gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Temple, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr S Harison, the applicant’s agent, and Mr G Hodnett, the applicant’s son spoke in support.

The Chairperson reported that the local ward member was unable to attend the meeting.

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

·        A balance had to be struck between farming and tourism.  Farming contributed to the environment that encouraged tourism.

·        The application had clearly been thoroughly assessed and was a sound application.

·        Clarification was sought on the perimeter fencing and whether this would be stock proof, a concern raised by the public speaker in objection to the application.  The DM commented that the application site lay some distance north of the speaker’s property and was not contiguous.  He did not consider that a condition would be appropriate.  In response a Member asked if the application were approved if the decision notice could encourage dialogue between the applicant and neighbours.

·        The application was an extension with little visual impact.

·        The Transportation Manager considered the proposal to be acceptable.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal.

·        It was noted that condition 11 required passing places along the C1064 approval for which would have to be granted by Powys County Council and clarification was sought on how this process would be managed.  The Lead Development Manager (LDM) commented that cross-border issues of this nature were dealt with in a straightforward manner. The applicant would apply to Powys CC.  Herefordshire Council would be consulted.  The proposed condition prevented development until the passing places had been established..

·        The route to and from the site was a recognised National Cycle Route(NCR 25) and information was sought on the development’s effect on the route.  It was also asked if Powys CC could be asked to designate the route as a quiet lane.

·        It was asked in relation to condition 5 relating to the external lighting scheme if the authority could consult with the National observatory on the detail of the scheme.  The LDM suggested that an informative could be added requesting the applicant to undertake an informal consultation with the observatory, noting that the council would be undertaking a formal consultation as part of the consideration of the scheme.

·        As an environmental permit was not required from the Environment Agency for a scheme of the size proposed, the council would be responsible for the enforcement of the proposed manure management plan including the impact on water quality from manure spreading.  It was asked how this would be managed and what account that plan would take of off-site spreading.

·        The DM confirmed that the MMP would deal with off-site spreading. The proposed condition was to ensure compliance with the MMP.

The LDM commented that the enforcement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Change of use of unit 10 from A1 to B2 (retrospective).

The Committee deferred consideration of the application.

(Change of use of unit 10 from A1 to B2 (retrospective).)

The Enforcement 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 G Lloyd, of Marden Parish Council spoke on the Scheme.  He clarified that the Parish Council was not opposed to the current use but was concerned about the proposal to grant B2 use rather than B1 and how it would be ensured that there was a reversion to the original A1 use if there was a change in ownership.   Mrs J Lloyd, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Ms D Jones, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Chairperson reported that the local ward member, Councillor KS Guthrie, was unable to attend the meeting.  She had made a submission.  He read this to the meeting.

In summary this made the following points.

·        There was a high level of support for the application.  However, she had requested that it be considered by the Committee because: the application was retrospective, some residents who lived adjacent to the site had raised concerns regarding noise, smell and disturbance at night, and Marden Parish Council had concerns about the change of use from A1 to B2 general industrial use in conflict with the Marden NDP Policy 7 c) d) e) & f)

·        She was very concerned about the impact on the amenity of the next door neighbours and the surrounding residential area. There were no conditions on the hours of operation, contrary to Marden NDP Policy M7 d).

·        If the Committee was minded to approve the application then conditions on hours of operation - especially restrictions on antisocial hours from 11 pm to 8 am should be imposed to protect residential amenity.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application it was questioned whether the use was B1 rather than B2 as proposed and what conditions could be imposed on hours. A suggestion was also made that a temporary permission might be appropriate to allow the impact on amenity to be assessed.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Shaw seconded a motion that consideration of the application be deferred to allow the matters that had been raised to be assessed.  This was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred pending further information.

Proposed ancillary annexe.

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

(Proposed ancillary annexe.)

The Development Manager 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 M Rowberry of Goodrich and Welsh Bicknor Group Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Chatterton, Company Secretary to Coppett Hill Common Trust, spoke in objection.  Mr A Fisher, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        He highlighted the beauty of the location within the Wye Valley AONB and the importance of tourism to the area’s economy.

·        The draft Neighbourhood Development Plan was due to gain weight within some 4 weeks.  The proposal was contrary to that Plan.  Weight should be given to the Plan.

·        An original application had been made to develop a new dwelling in the open countryside.  There had been no reference to it being an ancillary dwelling.  This application had been refused by officers. 

A revised application had subsequently been submitted for an ancillary annexe.  However, the application was the same as the original one, a two storey dwelling, on the same footprint.  A single storey structure on the existing footprint would provide adequate accommodation.  The proposal was a rebranding. It was unacceptable in such a sensitive, protected location.

·        There was concern that approval would set a precedent, permitting all the scattered properties along Coppett hill to be interspersed with substantial two storey new build structures described as annexes.

·        He opposed the application.

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

·        Whilst there was sympathy for personal circumstances, it was questioned why a separate structure was being proposed rather than an extension to the existing dwelling.

·        Regard had to be had to the importance of the landscape and the risk of setting a precedent for development.

·        The Lead Development Manager confirmed that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was at Regulation 14 Stage.  No weight could be given to it until it had completed Regulation 16 Stage.

·        The DM commented in response to points raised that the proposal was for a new build not a conversion of the existing garage.  He did not have the information to say whether there were any constraints preventing an extension to the existing dwelling. The question to be considered was whether the proposed building was of sufficiently modest scale to be considered ancillary.

There was no formula or guidance as to what floor area might qualify as an annexe.  It was a matter for the decision maker to determine having regard to the size of the dwelling, constraints of the site and relationship to the existing dwelling.

The revised scheme reduced the ridge height to 5.3m which he considered limiting in terms of potential for future use as a self-contained separate dwelling.  It had an appropriate and reasonable relationship to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Date of next site inspection – 20 November 2018

Date of next meeting – 21 November 2018