To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Clare Davies.

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

There were no substitutes.

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 4 September 2024.

The committee was informed of a necessary correction to the minutes of the previous meeting. Reference to Neighbourhood development plan policy LGPC 12 was incorrect and should be replaced by reference to LGPC 10.

RESOLVED:   That, subject to the correction outlined above, the minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2024 be approved.

Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval. (160581 - Proposed site for the erection of 5 no. four bedroom dwellings).

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

The Principal 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. Edwards spoke on behalf of Titley Group Parish Council, Mr. Jones, local resident spoke in objection to the application and Mr Tompkins, the 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 although the principle for development had been established on the application site, from an earlier permission, the committee had expressed concerns regarding the design and the height of the proposed houses. Following the deferral of the application at a previous meeting of the planning committee the applicant had made some changes to the design of the houses but there had been no change to the size, height or footprint of the properties proposed on the site. These issues had been of concern to the committee at the previous meeting and had led to the deferral of the application. The settlement of Titley was a village but could be classed as a hamlet and had experienced minimal development since the Second World War. The application represented development that was an exception to the gradual construction of dwellings and a substantial increase in housing locally. Since the meeting of the committee, at which the application had been deferred, the Titley Group Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) had been made and the committee now had a number of relevant planning policies on which to refuse the application. Core strategy policies LD1, LD4 were cited as grounds for the refusal of the application together with NDP policies TG1, TG2, TG13, TG15 and TG 16. The committee had provided the applicant with the opportunity to amend the application to ensure that it respected the landscape and to modify the design of the houses in line with the reasons for deferral from the previous committee meeting. The changes undertaken to the application were seen as a missed opportunity as the houses continued to be excessively large and dominant for the site on which they were positioned.

The committee debated the application.

There was concern on the part of some members that the reasons for the deferral of the application at the previous committee meeting had not been taken into account in the modifications that had been made to the design of the houses.

Councillor Jacqui Carwardine left the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

Councillor Polly Andrews proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion that the application be deferred to offer the applicant an opportunity to modify the scale and height of the houses in the application. Councillor Richard Thomas subsequently withdrew as the seconder to the motion; the motion was therefore not formally moved.

There was division among the members of the committee. It was the contention of some members that the scale and size of the buildings remained excessive. Other members of the committee cited examples in the locality of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposed boat ramp, siting of crane and associated hardstanding and footpath.

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

The Principal Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates representations received following the publication of the agenda as attached to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Milln spoke on behalf of Hereford City Council and Mr Taylor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution a statement was read out on behalf of the local ward member. In summary, she explained the application had attracted a large number of representations both in objection and in support. The area of riverbank within the application was a highly valued part of the city for its scenic qualities and recreational uses. The aims of the application to increase access to the river were supported but it was noted that a highly sensitive approach was necessary to protect the welfare of the river. The application site was in a conservation area, a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and a special area of conservation (SAC). The application therefore required a habitat regulation assessment (HRA) which had been considered by Natural England. Natural England had considered the HRA and objected to the application, due to its impact on the river. Natural England had previously given the river an unfavourable-declining rating. It was hoped that elements of the application and project could be taken forward and the sea scouts were encouraged to investigate the possibility of sharing facilities with the Rowing Club to launch boats.

The committee debated the application.

There was division among the membership of the committee regarding the acceptability of the application. It was the contention of some members of the committee that the impact of the application was not significant given similar structures which existed in close proximity at the Rowing Club. There was concern that the objection from Natural England obstructed a valuable local project.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded a motion that the application be approved. The motion was subsequently withdrawn by both proposer and seconder.

It was the contention of other members of the committee that the unfavourable-declining condition of the river must be taken into account in determining the application and that the objection of Natural England must be given significant weight in the committee’s deliberations.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and councillor Dave Boulter seconded the refusal of the application in accordance with the case officer's recommendation.

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

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is refused for the following reason:

The application site is within the catchment of the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European designated site and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The SAC is notified at a national level as the River Wye Site of Special Scientific Interest. There is a requirement for a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.