To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

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

No substitutes.

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

Councillor Charlotte Taylor declared, in relation to agenda item no.6, application 222138 – Land at Three Elms,  that she had previously made comments on social media regarding the application but that she was approaching the determination of the application at the present meeting with an open mind,  

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October be approved.

Outline Planning application with all matters reserved, except access, for the first phase of an urban extension comprising up to 350 homes (Use Class C3); and a care home (Use Class C2), park & choose interchange; together with open and play space, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works.

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

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda. Correspondence received from Heineken's legal team, after the publication of the updates sheet, was raised confirming their position relating to water supply.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Milln, spoke on behalf of Herefordshire City Council, Mr Hull, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Barrett-Mudhoo, spoke in support on behalf of the applicant.

In accordance with the council's constitution a statement was read on behalf of the local ward member. In summary, he explained that flooding was a problem on the proposed site and incidents of flooding locally would be exacerbated by the development. Traffic in the area was a significant concern and the proposed development would add to problems with congestion on the local highways. There was also concern that additional houses in the locality and the consequent increase in traffic movements would result in an adverse impacts on highway safety, particularly for school children accessing local schools. It was queried whether there were sufficient local services to accommodate the additional houses and residents proposed by the new development. It was noted that the development would result in the loss of prime arable land. The application would result in the loss of access to the open countryside and the enjoyment of local footpaths. There would be an increase in the level of pollution caused by the additional traffic movements associated with the site. There would be a loss of natural and agricultural habitat and it was not obvious, in the application, how this would be mitigated.

In accordance with the council's constitution a statement was read on behalf of the adjoining ward member. In summary, she explained that the development would exacerbate existing congestion issues on the highways in the local area and have an adverse impact on highway safety. Traffic leaving the proposed site would have difficulty joining the flow of traffic along Roman Road and Three Elms Road. In addition, the proposed access onto Roman Road would be on a section of the road with the national speed limit of 60 mph which was hazardous; Roman Road was noted as a problem area for speeding. The proposed access for Roman Road was also to be situated in close proximity to a children’s play area on the Tillington Road. It was understood that traffic calming measures could be introduced but there would be increased noise from traffic which would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. It was requested that the applicant discuss with the council the possibility of making the old Tillington Road from the South one way to overcome problems involving the build up of traffic on the Roman Road during peak times.

The committee debated the application and was divided as to the acceptability of the application; the following principal points were raised:

• The need for the site had been established as a contribution towards the expansion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Proposed two-storey educational building with associated landscaping and infrastructure works.

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

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda. A correction was provided to paragraph 2.2 of the report; the paragraph should have referred to eight (8) large classrooms and other ancillary spaces. The paragraph incorrectly quoted 13 additional classrooms.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Hancorn, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Molyneux-Wright, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution, a statement was read on behalf of the local ward member. He explained, that whilst there was an urgent need for school places in Herefordshire the proposal in the application should take account of the wider context to ensure it was appropriate for pupils and the local community. The area and school suffered from significant traffic and parking pressures locally; there was concern that the expansion would exacerbate these problems. It was important to confirm that the expansion of the high school aligned with the wider housing plans and development in the county. There was also concern at the recent Ofsted ratings in relation to the school and it was questioned whether this was the right location for significant capital investment. Whilst it was recognised that increasing school places was necessary, issues around access and transport and strategic planning must be fully addressed before a decision was made.

The committee debated the application:

• There had been a number of concerns raised regarding the process followed for the application and clarity was requested that due process had been followed.
• The application proposed a substantial building in an open space but it was acknowledged that the building was located within the context of other educational buildings therefore was not out of keeping;
• The proposed budling was at a significant distance from neighbouring properties and there was screening of the building by trees on the site boundaries. Verification was requested the trees would be retained on the southern boundary to maintain screening at this location.
• It was noted that additional parking was proposed as part of the application; the active travel measures to access the school were welcomed and it was hoped would discourage car travel to the site.
• The provision of solar panels on the roof of the proposed building was welcomed.
• The loss of playing fields was regretted but new sports facilities were proposed as part of the application which would also be accessible to the local community.

The development manager provided the following clarification:

• the application was a public finance initiative (PFI) application which had a shorter determination date and a shorter consultation period. However, revised plans for the application had been subject to a 21 day consultation which was beyond the requirements in the PFI legislation.
• It was confirmed that there was no intention to remove trees from the boundaries around the building and a condition was imposed on the permission to protect trees on the site.

Councillor Stef Simmons proposed and Councillor Richard Thomas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Proposed change of use from a public house (Sui Generis) to a dwellinghouse (Class C3).

Application refused in accordance with the case officer’s application.

Councillor Bruce Baker acted as the local ward member for the application below.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Burge, spoke on behalf of Pencombe Parish Council, and Mr Haslam and Mr Lewis 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 the application had generated a significant number of objections and the public house was viewed as an important element of the local community. It was unfortunate that the community benefit society had agreed a price for the purchase of the pub which had been subject to an increase. The asking price for the pub was felt to be above inflation and above market value and the committee were asked to decline the application.

The committee debated the application. It was considered that the village pub was the heart of the community and such community assets were vital to the health of local communities in rural areas. It was noted that there were a number of local customers and the pub was felt to be a viable commercial enterprise.

Councillor Stef Simmon proposed and Councillor Peter Hamblin seconded a motion that the application be refused in accordance with the case officer's recommendation. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons: