Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: The Kindle Centre, Belmont Road, Hereford, HR2 7JE
Contact: Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer
Link: Watch this meeting live on the Herefordshire Council Youtube Channel
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence.
Apologies were received from Councillors Clare Davies, Terry James and Tony Johnson.
NAMED SUBSTITUTES (if any)
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 James.
Councillor Nigel Shaw acted as a substitute for Councillor Johnson.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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.
Councillor John Hardwick declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 6, application 220370, Woodfields Fruit Ltd; the applicant was a known associate.
Kevin Bishop declared an other interest in respect of agenda item no. 7, application 221177, Sheepcotts; the applicant was a known associate.
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2023.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January be approved.
220370 - WOODFIELDS FRUIT LTD, WOODFIELDS WESTON UNDER PENYARD, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 7PG PDF 1 MB
Repositioning of approved student welfare/amenity block and use of the land for the standing of 59 mobile homes for seasonal workers (this includes the relocation of 19 existing units approved in 2012 and 11 units relocated from Rock Farm), associated drainage infrastructure, landscaping and 2 laundry units.
Application approved with a change to the case officer’s recommendation; temporary permission granted.
The principal planning officer gave a presentation on the application.
In accordance with the criteria for public speaking; a statement was read on behalf of Weston-under-Penyard Parish Council; a statement was read on behalf of Mrs Reynolds, local resident, in objection to the application; and Mrs Joseph, 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 the application impacted on existing rights of way across the site; if the application was approved footpaths should be diverted. Residents in the local Dairy Cottages had complained of noise from the site; the relocation of the welfare block would not reduce the level of noise experienced by local residents. The green buffer zone was supported but there was concern workers would congregate in the area during warmer weather and cause noise, affecting local residents. The proposed barbecue area should be enlarged and covered to encourage the workers to congregate away from the Dairy Cottages. The noise management plan needed to include more detail of the monitoring that would take place and whether staff would be available to deal with complaints from local residents when they occurred. There was concern regarding waste water on the site; the smell of sewage was evident in summer. The state of the road to the site was in a poor condition.
The committee debated the application.
The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained concern regarding: the re-siting of the welfare block, noise from which would have an impact on local residents; the possibility of overflowing sewage; the increase in the number of caravans in the application; and the requirement for a diversion of public rights of way on site.
A motion that the application be deferred and a delegation be provided to offices to finalise the noise management plan was proposed by Councillor Felicity Norman and seconded by Councillor Sebastian Bowen. The motion was put to the vote and was lost by simple majority.
A motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer's recommendation but with a time limited period of 5-years for the permission, after which time a review of the effectiveness and implementation of the noise management plan would be undertaken, was proposed by councillor Nigel Shaw and seconded by councillor Paul Andrews. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.
That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions and amendments considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:
221177 - SHEEPCOTTS, ULLINGSWICK, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 3JQ PDF 798 KB
Erection of 1 no. dwelling of outstanding design and associated works including access, landscaping, outbuildings, infrastructure, lake creation and other engineering works.
Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.
The development manager north team gave a presentation on the application and updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.
In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Tompkins, 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 he was unable to support the application due to the size and scale of the development and its impact on the landscape. The judgement as to whether the development was outstanding, as defined paragraph 80(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), was a subjective determination for the committee to make. The application was felt to be contrary to core strategy policies SS1, SS2, LD1, RA3 and also contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan.
The committee debated the application.
The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate, he explained that due to the size and scale of the development, its impact on the Landscape was unacceptable.
A motion that the application be approved in accordance for the case officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor John Hardwick and seconded by Councillor Dave Boulter. The motion was put to the vote and was lost by simple majority.
A motion that the application be refused for those reasons set out below was proposed by Councillor Yolande Watson and seconded by Councillor Jeremy Milln. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.
RESOLVED – that planning permission is refused for the following reasons: