To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Polly Andrews.

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

Councillor Kevin Tillett acted as a substitute for Councillor Polly Andrews.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2022.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2022 be approved.

Proposed Erection of Up to 89 Dwellings (35% Affordable Housing). Construction of New Vehicular Access and Associated Works.

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

The planning officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Scrimgeour spoke on behalf of Peterchurch Parish Council and Mr Smith, 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 she explained that the application could be of benefit to Peterchurch by providing new homes and improved amenities. The application was proposed on a site that had been allocated for development. However, before the application proceeded it was essential that the landscape and biodiversity of the area was protected. Before the reserved matters application was approved assessments of the impact of the developments on local water courses should be undertaken. The 89 houses proposed in the application would generate significant discharges and there was concern that the wastewater treatment works lacked sufficient capacity. There was also concern about the supply of potable water. Legal advice that had been sought indicated that a habitats regulations assessment (HRA) was required along with further consultation with Natural England (NE) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) over the impact of the application on local rivers. The committee was urged to defer the application pending consultation with NRW and the completion of an HRA.

The committee debated the application.

A motion that the application be deferred was proposed Councillor Felicity Norman and seconded Councillor Sebastian Bowen.

Councillor Sebastian Bowen withdrew as seconder to the motion to defer the application.

The committee sought assurances that concerns over potable water and sewage would be addressed with Welsh Water.

The committee felt that there should be a reassessment of the need for studies concerning the environmental implications of the application at a later stage.

The committee sought greater detail regarding sustainable travel and connectivity on the site plan for the application.

The lead development manager explained that the application site was not within an area that required an HRA. The officer recommendation in the report sought a delegation to officers to complete a section 106 agreement. When that agreement was in place there would be a further reassessment of whether an HRA was required in line with any policy or procedural changes.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary she explained that rare species of fauna in the River Dore required protection. A written record that an HRA was not required had been requested but had not been forthcoming. The local authority had responsibility for identifying where risks to the local environment existed and the new cabinet commission on phosphates was committed to protecting river catchments in Herefordshire. The local authority should consult NRW and complete an HRA. The rivers in the Golden Valley currently had no environmental protections.

A motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer's recommendation was proposed by Councillor Paul Rone and seconded by Councillor Elizabeth Foxton. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Proposed 35x18m manege and associated groundworks.

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

The senior planning officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Jones, Ms O'Neill and Mr Owen, local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Ms Toye, 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 there had been a previous application on the site which had been withdrawn. The work proposed in that applications had been undertaken, therefore the current application was retrospective in effect. The work that had been undertaken consisted of the removal of earth and had caused ecological harm to a local wildlife site (LWS). The committee was urged to consider the application and determine whether it would have allowed the work that has been undertaken at the site to go ahead. There was concern that the ecological assessment was ambiguous regarding the future classification of the site as a LWS. There was further concern regarding the proposed condition for the monitoring up the development which had been reduced from 30 years to 10 years. Clarification was sought as to who would conduct the monitoring, what penalties could be applied and who would be responsible for enforcement. The damage had been caused on site would now need to be left to recover.

The committee debated the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. She explained that the objection of the ecology team to the earlier application had been overcome in the current application due to the submission of an ecological report. The ecological report had recommended that a hedge was retained on the site but the hedge had been removed. The site was not suitable for a manege as it was not flat. It was explained that the ecological damage caused should not be allowed to continue.

A motion that the application be refused due to adverse impact on landscape and environment was proposed by councillor Yolande Watson and Councillor Felicity Norman. The adverse impact on landscape and environment was contrary to: policy WG1 of the Wigmore group neighbourhood development plan; policies LD 1, LD 2, LD3, SS1 and SS6 of the Herefordshire local plan core strategy; and Chapter 15 of the national planning policy framework.

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

RESOLVED: - that planning permission is refused; the application represents an adverse impact on the landscape and environment. The application is contrary to: policy WG1 of the Wigmore group neighbourhood development plan; policies LD 1, LD 2, LD3, SS1 and SS6 of the Herefordshire local plan core strategy; and chapter 15 of the national planning policy framework.