To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Stef Simmons.

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

Councillor Diana Toynbee acted as a substitute for Councillor Simmons.

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

Councillor Matthew Engel declared an interest in agenda item no. 9, application 251363, as a close personal associate of the family of the applicant.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September be approved.

Demolition of 2 no. agricultural buildings. Proposed 4 no. dwellinghouses with garages, landscaping and associated works.

Application deferred.

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application and provided the following verbal update to the committee:

A further email regarding the application had been received which raised 2 points:

On the foul water drainage strategy, the proposal is to lay a discharge pipe from the package treatment plant to the River Lodon to the east. The applicant states that he has the relevant ownership. However, he only has ownership to the culvert / ditch immediately to the east of the site and not to the river tributary itself some further distance away. He cannot discharge into the culvert as this is dry for part of the year and subject to flooding in periods of heavy rain. This needs clarification as I am not sure everyone understands the nature of what is being proposed. Indeed,

I am fairly sure that Land Drainage believe discharge will be into the river and not the culvert whereas the developer is intending to use the culvert.

On the traffic, paragraph 6.60 of your report is technically incorrect.

Traffic from the site cannot turn right through Monkhide as this access is private and restricted with access only being granted to the residents of Monskbury Court itself, the emergency services, and Herefordshire Council's utility services. I believe the owner of LTF Properties (applicant) has a similar right. Furthermore, you will note from the approval of the 7 houses adjacent (192765) that there is a planning condition that residents may only use the access onto the A417 to avoid any increase in traffic on the narrow and twisty road between Monkhide and the A4103. This followed previous concerns of the Highways department in relation to an earlier refused planning application in Monkhide itself. You may wish to make note of this as the condition should also apply to any additional housing as now proposed.

A response to the email had been provided by the agent to the application:

With regards the comments in respect of foul drainage, you will note that the proposal is for the package treatment plant to discharge to the ditch to the east of the site and not to the River Lodon as suggested. This is documented in the submitted ‘Surface Water Management Plan, Flood Risk Assessment and Foul Drainage Strategy: Barns at Monksbury Court Rev. 2’ and has been confirmed as acceptable by the Council land drainage officer. The applicant owns the necessary land and permissions for this without the need to cross any third party land.

Relevant extracts:

‘Broadlands Road is to the East of the site which is a private road and has a ditch on the Eastern side. The ditch is an ordinary watercourse.’ (Foul Drainage Strategy)

‘Treated effluent from the Package Treatment Plant should be discharged to the watercourse. The base of ditch level is approximately 97.36mAOD and the site is 98.87mAOD. Therefore the package treatment plant can drain via gravity to the ditch.’ (Foul Drainage Strategy)

The Applicant has confirmed that they own the land between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Erection of 2 detached custom/self-build dwelling houses.

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, Mr Lowder, local resident, spoke in objection to the application Mr Pratley, 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 the engagement between the applicant and local residents had not been sufficient and therefore a number of local objections remained to the proposal. It was understood that the proposed site would result in the loss of the allotments was which may not be a material consideration but would pose an adverse impact on the local community. The planning history associated with the site was a material consideration and it was noted that previous applications had been refused. Highway safety concerns regarding the application also persisted. Clarity was required as it was not felt that the neighbourhood development plan had been adhered to given the excessive size of the houses.  The results of the ecological report were questioned given that they appeared to be at odds with the experience of the local community; it was queried how the outcomes of the report could be challenged or questioned. The size of the proposed dwellings was not required within the local area; housing was required for first time buyers and elderly residents.

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

·       The size and scale of the houses were in-keeping with other properties in the area and the design of the buildings and the materials used would be sympathetic to the local area;

·       A query was raised regarding which trees would be retained on site;

·       The definition of the development as self build was queried; and

·       It was noted that the local parish council objected to the application.

The development manager provided the following clarification:

·       Condition 5, proposed in the report, provided for an arboricultural impact assessment to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development;

·       The applicant would have an input into the design of the houses which would comply with the definition of self build or custom build development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, she explained that concerns regarding traffic and access to the site persisted. It was not felt that the proposed development served the needs of the people of Cradley and it was queried whether the proposed houses were in an appropriate location.

Councillor Dave Davies proposed and Councillor Peter Hamblin 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.   C01 – Time Limit for Commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Erection of an agricultural building on agricultural land.

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, a statement was read on behalf of Mr Gibbs, local resident, in objection to the application and Mrs Boaz, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the application had received objections from local residents and the parish council. A number of objections had concerned flooding and drainage and a lot of work had been undertaken to address these concerns. The positioning of the application site in relation to Saint Peter’s holy well had been raised as an issue but this concern had been addressed with clarification as to where the barn would be positioned on the site.  The location of the barn on the site would be below and positioned away from St Peter’s holy well and so would not have an impact on this water supply. The positioning of the barn would have no additional impact on surface water flooding from the application site.

The committee debated the application.  It was noted that the application was for an agricultural building on agricultural land. The barn would not be positioned close to Saint Peter’s holy well  and would be set at a level below this water source. Concerns raised regarding manure were not felt to be compelling given the agricultural nature of the site. It was noted that local residential properties were set at 400 metres from the site.

Councillor Peter Hamblin proposed and councillor Richard Thomas 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 unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers:

1.         Time limit for commencement

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.         Development in accordance with approved plans

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing no. 8396/1 and document entitled “Planning Statement”), except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Policy SD1 of the Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy, the Peterchurch Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         Vehicular Access Construction

The construction of the vehicular access shall be carried out in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, at a gradient not steeper than 1 in 12.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform to the requirements of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Proposed conversion and extension of field barn to a self-build dwelling and associated works (Part retrospective).

Application approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Phillips spoke on behalf of Dorstone parish council and Mr Goodwin 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 a large number of representations had been received in support of the application.  The proposal was for a modest building which had a minimal impact on the landscape. The development met the requirements of core strategy policy SS1 and there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 The committee debated the application. The following principal points were raised;

• There was no impact from the development on the local landscape and the work undertaken restored an historic agricultural building in accordance with core strategy policies LD1 and LD4;
• The application supported sustainable agricultural communities in accordance with core strategy policies RA2, RA3 and RA4;
• It was considered that the proposal complied with the requirements of core strategy policy RA5 (5) and in the view of the committee the existing building was not subject to substantial alteration and extension and the proposal would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the building or have a detrimental impact on its surroundings and landscape setting.

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

Councillor Richard Thomas proposed and councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved for the following reasons and authority be delegated to officers to draft appropriate conditions to the permission:

• There was no impact from the development on the local landscape and the work undertaken restored an historic agricultural building in accordance with core strategy policies LD1 and LD4;
• The application supported sustainable agricultural communities in accordance with core strategy policies RA2, RA3 and RA4;
• It was considered that the proposal complied with the requirements of core strategy policy RA5 (5) and in the view of the committee the existing building was not subject to substantial alteration and extension and the proposal would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the building or have a detrimental impact on its surroundings and landscape setting.

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

RESOLVED:

That the application is approved for the following reasons and authority be delegated to officers to draft appropriate conditions to the permission:

• There is no adverse impact from the development on the local landscape and the work undertaken restored an historic agricultural building in accordance with core strategy policies LD1 and LD4;
• The application supports sustainable agricultural communities in accordance with core strategy policies RA2, RA3 and RA4;
• the proposal complies with the requirements of core strategy policy RA5 (5) and in the view of the committee the existing building is not subject to substantial alteration and extension and the proposal will not adversely affect the character or appearance of the building or have a detrimental impact on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.