To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Stone.

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

Councillor Robert Highfield acted as a substitute for Councillor Stone.

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

Councillor Charlotte Taylor declared a non-registrable interest in agenda item no. 8 (Application 250688 – Bishopstone House); the applicant and applicant’s family were close associates. Councillor Taylor would leave the meeting room during consideration of the application and take no part in its determination.

Councillor Polly Andrews declared a personal interest agenda item no. 6 (Application 242024 – Land opposite and East of Caenwood); the applicant was a distant known associate.

Councillor Terry James declared a personal interest agenda item no. 6 (Application 242024 – Land opposite and East of Caenwood); the applicant was a distant known associate.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2025 be approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.

Proposed erection of self-build dwelling and ancillary outbuildings and creation of access.

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

Councillor Simeon Cole acted as the local ward member for the following application.

The senior 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 De La Hay, the applicant, 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 proposal was contrary to elements of the Walford neighbourhood development plan (NDP). The proposal did not accord with Walford NDP policies WALF2 and WALF20. The proposed development did not respect the character of the area, the contemporary design was at odds with other local properties and was too far from existing homes to accord with the requirements of the NDP for new properties. Drainage from the site was a significant concern and questions had been raised regarding the suitability of the compost toilet on the site and the impact this was likely to have on other local properties and water courses. In addition there were concerns about the smell produced from the compost toilet. There was concern that run off from the compost toilet would enter water courses and eventually the river Wye. Before any approval for the application was considered an Environment Agency drainage permit should be secured by the applicant. The impact of the development on the local landscape and views in the area meant the application was contrary to Core Strategy policies SD1 and LD1 and NDP policies WALF17 and WALF4. Due to the inconsistencies of the proposed development with the NDP and the Core Strategy the application should be refused.

The committee debated the application. The committee did not consider that the development had an adverse impact on the landscape as the property was lowered into the development site and was well screened. The use of a steel roof was questioned as being out of keeping with other local properties but it was felt that the property was modest and discreet and would not pose an unacceptable impact on the local landscape. It was noted that the local parish council had no objection to the application. The development had been subject to a habitats regulation assessment and drainage from the property would be subject to an Environment Agency permit.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved 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 be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

1.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.     The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Proposed flood alleviation scheme to address historic flooding across the Merton Meadows area of the city.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation and with a change to conditions.

Councillor Polly Andrews acted as the local ward member for the application below.

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 Milln, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, she explained that the proposal had been subject to negotiation with environmental bodies and interested parties. It was part of the development of the Merton Meadow urban village and the proposed works were designed to protect against flooding from Widemarsh Brook and local watercourses. The proposal would improve large areas of scrubland in the locality.

The committee debated the application. The committee was in favour of the application and the following principal points were raised during the debate:

-        the loss of parking locally was a concern and it was hoped that schemes would be put in place to offset the loss of parking places resulting from the application;

-        the flood modelling that had been undertaken contained elements of uncertainty and concerns existed regarding the likely impact of the measures proposed upstream. It was noted that the Wildlife Trust had been developing an area for flood alleviation upstream from the development site and it was questioned how this would be affected by the proposed development;

-        It was noted that the condition relating to the management and maintenance of the landscape was for a period of 10 years, this was not felt to be a sufficient period of time and it was requested that the condition be extended to the maximum period allowable or 30 years;

-        The tensions with core strategy policies HD2 and E4, with relation to the canal restoration, were understood. However it was considered that the attenuation pond proposed close to the site of the canal basin would not be an impediment to the future restoration of the canal.

-        The proposal would create wetland in the centre of Hereford. Schemes and measures needed to be put in place in order to protect the wildlife that would be attracted to the wetlands.

-        Improved connectivity to the proposed wetlands from the transport hub was required for pedestrians to access the ponds.

The development manager provided the following clarification

-        The application was very technical in detail and significant modelling of the flooding had been undertaken. The Environment Agency as the statutory consultee had reviewed the flood risk assessment and the modelling and had no objection. The Wildlife Trust had been involved in discussions regarding the scheme but comments regarding the impact of the scheme on work that the Wildlife Trust was undertaking would be fed back to the project team.

-        The length proposed for the maintenance and management of the site in condition 13 could be extended.

-        The provision of parking would be considered by the project team.

-        The ecological impact of the application would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Proposed demolition of the existing northwest annex and construction of a single-storey extension with terrace. 

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

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application and gave a verbal update to condition 3 of the recommended conditions. Recommendation 3 should read as below;

No below ground work should take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological survey and recording open brackets to include recording of the standing historic fabric and any below ground deposits affected by the works close brackets. This programme shall be in accordance with the written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority and shall be in accordance with a brief prepared by the county archaeology service.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member provided a statement on the application. In summary, he supported the application and the works proposed.

The committee debated the application and was content that the proposal was an enhancement to the existing development.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and councillor Dave Davis seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

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

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: