To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Polly Andrews, Jacqui Carwardine, Dave Davies and Elizabeth Foxton.

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

Councillor Chris Bartrum acted as a substitute for Councillor Andrews.

Councillor Matthew Engel acted as a substitute for Councillor Foxton.

Councillor Roger Phillips acted as a substitute for Councillor Dave Davies.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest at this stage of the meeting, please see paragraph 21 below.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2024.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July be approved.

Proposed two purpose built transformer housing (standard GRP green glass fibre polyester resin housing) each sat on concrete plinths for flood protection. With substations installed inside each housing to supply electricity to Welsh Water, Local residents and Businesses. Each glass fibre polyester resin housing is: width 3300mm, Depth 2400,Height 2270 to be mounted on 600mm concrete base. To be positioned side by side doors to face south into the meadow.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Catherine Gennard left the committee to act as the local ward member for applications 233134 and 240480.

The Senior Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda. A verbal update of representations received following the circulation of the update sheet was provided[1].

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Milln, spoke on behalf of Hereford City Council, Mr Steel spoke in objection to the application and Mr Gammond spoke in support.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the right of way across the site was popular and the area was an important setting to demarcate the urban area from the countryside. There was a scheduled ancient monument on Bartonsham Meadow and there were extensive views from the area across Dinedor and Aconbury Hills. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact upon the local setting and the application contained insufficient detail regarding the proposed planting/screening of the housings which would take a significant time to become established. The development would restrict the width of the entrance to the Meadow to 4 metres which was felt to be too narrow for vehicles seeking access. Alternative sites for the housings existed but it was not the role of the committee to suggest such amendments to the application. The applicant had supplied limited noise data regarding the impact of the development on local residential amenity but the assessment was insufficient and the application did not take proper account of the low level hum produced from the development. There was very little supporting information or assessments concerning the application. A refusal of the application was encouraged due to the unacceptable impact on the landscape, contrary to core strategy policies LD1, SD1, LD4, SS6 and HD2.

The committee debated the application and the following principal points were raised:

• The position of the development in the entrance to the site caused an unacceptable impact on the landscape and was an impediment to access to the meadow.
• The impact of the development upon key views from the site was unacceptable.
• The impact of the development upon the setting and character of the local area was unacceptable.
• The benefit of the removal of the existing pylons was recognised but there was insufficient detail in the application to assuage concerns regarding the impacts of the development and inconsistency with core strategy policies LD1, LD4 and SS6.

Councillor Matthew Engel declared a non-disclosable personal interest as a share holder in National Grid. The level of shareholding did not meet the threshold as a disclosable pecuniary interest in the councillor code of conduct.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Roger Phillips proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas seconded the refusal of the application due to the unacceptable impact of the development on the landscape contrary to core strategy policies LD1, SD1, LD4, SS6 and HD2.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To extend the permission to retain the mobile building on site as a shelter for temporary homeless for a further 5 years.

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

The Senior Planning Officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, a statement from Mr Lane, in objection to the application, was read to the meeting.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the change of use of the building to a homeless shelter had been accepted and it was queried whether a site management plan could be imposed in the conditions.

The committee debated the application and the following principal points were raised:

·       The application had established the need for the facility and its continued operation.

·       It was noted that the application was for temporary permission and it was urged that the local authority seek a permanent, long-term provision.

·       The visual impact of the building upon the local area was raised and consideration of screening of the development was encouraged in future.

·       A change to the conditions to limit the length of the permission from a period of 5 years to expiration in 2026 was raised to provide an impetus to the local authority to advance plans for a permanent facility. The proposed change to the conditions was not seconded and therefore was not moved.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and Councillor Simeon Cole seconded the approval of the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

Proposed Early Years learning shelter (Retrospective).

Application approved with a change to the conditions.

The Development Manager North Team 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 Bowman, spoke on behalf of Eardisley Group Parish Council and Mrs Layton spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with the council’s constitution, the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that there was an objection to the development due to its location within the local conservation area and in close proximity to the grade 1 listed church and Victorian school. The location of the development had a significant and adverse impact on highways safety. The shelter was positioned next to a busy, complicated 4-way junction which was regularly used by pedestrians, particularly parents and children accessing the school. The position of the shelter limited the view of the roads and oncoming traffic of both motorists and pedestrians using the junction. The junction served a large industrial estate with a number of traffic movements including HGVs. The splays at the junction were inadequate and the limited views caused by the shelter raised the possibility of accidents caused by motorists making mistakes.

The committee debated the application and the following principal points were raised:

·         There was division in the committee regarding the acceptability of the application.

·         Some members of the committee recognised that existing highways concerns existed at the junction by the school and highway safety could be addressed with the introduction of lower speed limits and better signage. It was felt that the need for the shelter had been established in the application.

·         It was the contention of other members of the committee that the location of the shelter was problematic and posed an unacceptable impact upon highway safety. The shelter restricted the view of motorists and pedestrians which increased the risk to pedestrians and children which was unacceptable and contrary to the Eardisley Group Neighbourhood Development Policy (NDP) policies T1 and T2.

·         The impact of the shelter on existing heritage assets was acknowledged. Some members of the committee felt that its impact on the local environment was unacceptable and contrary to NDP policy E2. It was the contention of other members of the committee that in the event that permission was granted the shelter should be painted in a colour that was complementary to existing, proximate buildings.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained that there was sympathy for the school but the location of the shelter restricted views from the junction and had an unacceptable impact upon highways safety.

Councillor Roger Philips proposed and Councillor Peter Hamblin seconded the refusal of the application due to: an unacceptable impact on highways safety, contrary to Eardisley Group NDP polices T1 and T2; and an unacceptable impact on local heritage assets and the village character, contrary to NDP policy E2.

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

Councillor Stef Simmons  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.