Apologies were received from Councillors Millmore, Seldon, Stone and Watson.

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

Councillor Durkin substituted for Councillor Stone, Councillor Phillips for Councillor Millmore and Councillor Summers for Councillor Seldon.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

Agenda item 8:  192969 – Bowling Green Farm, Clehonger

Councillor Hardwick declared an other declarable interest because he knew the applicant.

Agenda item 9: 193682 – Land Adjacent Brampton Abbotts Village Hall

Councillors Durkin and Hardwick declared other declarable interests as council appointees to the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2020.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

The Chairperson reported that agenda item 10: Land at Greyfriars Bridge, Hereford had been withdrawn from the agenda to allow further negotiations to take place.

He also reminded members of forthcoming planning training.

Proposed residential development of three dwellings.  

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

(Proposed residential development of three dwellings.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) 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 T Cramp, of Allensmore Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr T Hancox, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been 32 letters of objection and one letter of objection from the Allensmore Residents Group containing a further 13 signatures.  The Parish Council had also objected to the application urging that it be rejected to safeguard the amenity, character and local landscape of the village and the road safety of local residents.

·        The application was at odds with every relevant planning policy in the Allensmore Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  The NDP was a material consideration in determining the application.

·        The application also contravened several policies within the Core Strategy.  She outlined each policy in turn to demonstrate the cumulative demonstrable harm.

·        NDP Policy A1 – and Core Strategy Policy RA2: The application was not in keeping with the local built character and the linear nature of the village.  Policy RA2 recognised and valued the character and uniqueness of small settlements across the county and sought to ensure this was protected.

·        NDP Policy A2 – & Core Strategy Policy LD2: priority for new development should be to avoid harmful impact on biodiversity.  The Hereford Wildlife Trust had identified a pond 300m away with Great Crested Newts.  This did not appear to be considered in the ecological assessment and therefore it may not be compliant with Core Strategy Policy LD2 in relation to biodiversity

·        The application was contrary to policy A2. The drainage arrangements were not in accordance with the Binding Rules as treated effluent would be going to a dry ditch.  The drainage consultant had stated that if the current proposals were implemented there was a likelihood of pollution on third party land.

·        NDP Policy A3 – The site was outside the planning envelope and had been rejected by the independent assessors AECOM, due to its harm to the character of the settlement.  Allensmore had already significantly exceeded the minimum 14% target growth of 32 new dwellings, 41 having been built or approved.  On its own this was not a reason for refusal provided the application was acceptable in all other regards, which it was not.  There were further site allocations within the Allensmore NDP.  Further housing growth could be achieved without the significant harm that the application would cause.

·        NDP Policy A4 –The application was not within the settlement boundary, not of single depth, and not a brownfield site.  An independent report demonstrated that there was not a suitable and safe access.

·        NDP Policy A5 – The application did not demonstrate how it helped to maintain a suitable mix  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 163364/O (site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access).

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

(Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 163364/O (site for 3 detached dwellings with garages and access).  

(Councillor Fagan fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Thomas, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        There had been strong local opposition to the outline application granted by the Committee in April 2017.

·        Unfortunately neither the Parish Council nor an objector had been able to attend the meeting to speak on the reserved matters application.

·        The Parish Council had submitted a detailed and considered response objecting to the reserved matters application.  They had commented that the reserved matters application did not observe the spirit of the outline permission. 

·        The proposal was for 3x4 bed dwellings. This was in conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).  Within the Ross Housing Market Area the most required size was 3 bedrooms followed by 2.  Residents were objecting to the scale of the application.

·        She referenced some letters from local residents.  These highlighted concerns about:

·        Scale:  low rise, well-spaced, dormer cottage style 3-bedroom houses had initially been proposed.  The current proposal was for 3 large two storey houses with double detached garages.  Because of the sloping topography of the site the first floor levels of the properties would be the same height as the eaves of the bungalows opposite the site.  The ridge height was 7m.  The increased scale could have a greater impact on the environment than had been predicted.

·        Design:  the houses were of urban design and not in keeping with the area.  They would be intrusive and screening would be ineffective.

·        The dwellings would be overlooked by most of the village.

·        The hedgerow to the fore of the site would be at the first floor level of the properties making the development overbearing.

·        Most of the ancient hedgerow would be removed to provide the three driveways.

·        Drainage – several concerns remained over drainage issues.  It was noted, however, that this issue had been discussed at the outline application stage.

·        Traffic – concerns similarly remained over highway issues.

·        Working hours – the outline permission had permitted construction work between 7am-6pm Monday to Friday.  8am-1pm Saturday.  This would have an unacceptable impact on residents.

·        The National Design Guide 2019 supported paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated that, “permission should be refused for development of poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.

·        Referring to the three objectives of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental she commented that the proposal was contrary to both the social and environmental objectives.

·        The proposal was contrary to policy LD1.  The height, scale and massing of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Site for poultry managers dwelling.  

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

(Site for poultry manager’s dwelling.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs J Whittal, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        When the poultry units had been approved there had been over 100 objections, together with objections from local parish councils.   In contrast, the application for the poultry managers dwelling had attracted 23 letters of support, from residents, Allensmore Parish Council and Clehonger Parish Council, veterinary professionals and other experts.

·        It was relatively uncommon to see poultry units of this scale without a manager’s dwelling.  This was due to the type of operation, their size, the need for security and management of animal welfare.  Both the Madley and Kingstone poultry units had manager homes on site and they were just as close, if not closer to available housing stock.

·        There had been no objections from consultees.

·        The officer’s report outlined that in relation to Policy RA3 and RA4 of the Core Strategy there was considered to be a functional need for there to be somebody based close to the site; it was clear that the proposed dwelling was for a full-time employee based on the scale of the investment and enterprise, establishment and viability requirements were proven; and the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit.  The only question for the Committee therefore to consider was over whether a manager needed to reside on the site itself

·        She gave two examples where the Committee had recently agreed that there was an essential need for workers to live on site.  She noted that there had been other applications for managers dwellings that had been approved by officers under delegated authority.

·        The applicants had always envisaged providing the manager with a dwelling on site, believing this to be by far the best means of ensuring animal welfare and site security.  They considered there was an essential need for the manager to be housed on site for the following reasons: to comply with the Defra code on chicken welfare – when alarms go off or there are system failures, it often needs an immediate response.  The difference in minutes when responding to alarms at different times of the rearing cycle, can make a massive difference on livestock welfare;  managers living on site are able to monitor smell and noise more closely and potentially detect and resolve issues before alarms are triggered improving the overall welfare of the birds;  access roads to the farm had been affected and at times closed during recent flooding events and past snow falls.  A manager living in a dwelling in Clehonger, as suggested by the agricultural business consultant, would have to contend with these issues.  Minutes lost in such an event could have a significant impact on the welfare and even life of the flock; the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Variation of condition 2 of 171321/F (Proposed residential development of 2 new dwellings). To allow revised drawings, with new access with drives and garages re-positioned at dev 1.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation

(Variation of condition 2 of 171321/F (proposed residential development of 2 new dwellings). To allow revised drawings, with new access with drives and garages re-positioned at dev 1.)

(Councillor Durkin fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

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 D Teague, of Brampton Abbotts and Foy Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.  Mr B Miller-Hall, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The site was within the Wye Valley AONB.  It was important that the AONB was protected.

·        The Conservation Manager (Ecology) had objected to the proposal commenting that there was no evidence of there being an overriding public interest in allowing the additional loss and impacts on existing hedgerow. He considered the proposal to be contrary to policies SS6, LD1, LD2, LD3 and LD4.

·        It was stated that 3m of hedgerow would need to be removed.  It was likely that the impact would be more severe.  The existing proposal had involved the removal of 20m of hedgerow.

·        There had been 36 objections from 24 households.

·        The provision of an additional access created additional risk.

·        The NDP was at Regulation 16.  It attracted limited weight.  Policy BAF4 was relevant.

·        Weight should be given to the protection of the AONB. The proposal should be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies LD1, LD2, LD3 and BAF 4.

The legal adviser commented that references to uplift clauses and financial gain in the context of the proposal were not relevant and could not form part of the Committee’s consideration.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the consensus was that there appeared to be no sound reason in support of the application.  The proposal would damage more hedgerow.  There was local objection to it.  It appeared to be of benefit to no one except the developer.  The existing access was large and more than adequate.

The Development Manager commented that it was not for the Conservation Manager (Ecology) to judge whether or not there was an overriding public interest in support of the application.   The proposal would provide benefit by improving public safety on the footpath.  The plans showed that 3m of hedgerow would be removed and the application had to be judged on that basis.  There would be new hedgerow planting along the existing boundary with the public footpath, so offsetting the hedgerow loss. He noted the visual and ecological concerns expressed about losing the roadside hedge

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He questioned the extent of the effect on the footpath  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain  current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

(Replace the demountable flood defences with permanent glass panel flood walls and flood gates. This aims to reduce the whole life costs of the defences and reduce the risk of failure to deploy during flooding. The new passive defences will be located entirely along the within the footprint of the existing defences, and will be designed to fit into the existing supports. When open the floodgates will maintain  current access routes for pedestrians and maintenance.)

The application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request to allow further negotiations to take place.

Date of next site inspection – 10 March 2020

Date of next meeting – 11 March 2020

The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.