To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H Davies, KS Guthrie, JW Hope, J Pemberton and RV Stockton.

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

The following named substitutes were appointed:-

Councillor BA Durkin for Councillor J Pemberton.

Councillor J Goodwin for Councillor JW Hope.

Councillor Lloyd Hayes for Councillor H Davies.

Councillor R Mills for Councillor KS Guthrie.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest in Agenda item No. 11, Minute No. 37 (Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan: Outcome of Legal Challenge).

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2008.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 4th July, 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

COUNCILLOR RBA BURKE

The Chairman expressed his sadness at the recent loss of Councillor RBA Burke and the Committee stood in silent tribute to his memory.

REEVES HILL WIND TURBINE

The Council has received a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement for the erection of 4 wind turbines at Reeves Hill in the northwest of the County.  The application is in the midst of public consultation with a view to it being submitted to a future meeting of the Committee.  A site visit will be undertaken prior to the meeting and existing turbines in Gwynedd will be viewed to note their impact on a rural setting.

To receive the attached report of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 & 30 July 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 2nd & 30th July 2008 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 9 July & 6 August 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on  9th July & 6th August 2008.

be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 23 July 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 23 July 2008 be received and noted.

For:      Mr J. Mills per McCartneys, 54 High Street, Kington, Herefordshire HR5 3BJ

The application has been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was minded to approve it contrary to Council Policy and Officer advice.

Ward: Castle

The Senior Planning Officer presented a report about the application which had been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it contrary to planning policies and officer advice.  He referred to correspondence received from the applicant and described the application site and what it was used for, pointing out that it was part of the main farm complex which was situated some two miles from the application site. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Gwilliam, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor GW Greenow said that he supported the application because he was of the view that there was a legitimate need for the development.  He felt that although part of the business was based in New Zealand, the majority was located in the UK and that and that an agricultural worker needed to be on site because of the particular breed of cattle which required greater attention to breed and manage to maximise market prices compared to some other breeds which were easier to manage.  He felt that every assistance should be given for a local person to be able to remain in agriculture near to his family because of the 24 hour nature of the job.  

The Senior Planning Officer said that the Officers had observed the site on a number of occasions and had not seen any evidence of essential need such as providing help for cows that were calving there.  The key issues about the application related to the justification for a dwelling on site and the  financial ability of the existing business to absorb the cost of a second dwelling.  The  application site was comprised of approximately 84 acres of land with an adjacent modern steel-framed agricultural building used for the over-wintering of beef cattle.

Officers were of the opinion that the management system of the cattle did not have  an essential need for a permanent dwelling on site as this could be done from the main holding of Lower Woonton Farm which had a comprehensive range of agricultural buildings.  The Senior Planning Officer was of the view that the application could not be supported because insufficient essential and functional need had been demonstrated for a permanent dwelling.  Furthermore he felt that the application failed the financial test as set out in PPS7.  The site also contained insufficient visibility splays on entrance/exit to the adjacent public highway.

The Committee discussed the merits of the application and the functional and financial tests that were applicable.  The type of agricultural work undertaken by the applicant was noted, particularly that involving ewe scanning in New Zealand and the UK.  The Senior Planning Officer answered a number of questions raised by Members about the application, the relevance of animal welfare issues, whether an agricultural condition could be imposed and the issue of acceptable visibility splays.

The Planning Policy Manager emphasised that the application did not meet the criteria for an agricultural worker to be present  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

For:      Mr & Mrs Hopkinson per Warren Benbow Architects 21 Mill Street Kington Herefordshire  HR5 3AL

The application has been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was minded to approve it contrary to Council Policy and Officer advice.

Ward:  Castle

A report was presented by the Senior Planning Officer about an application which had been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to grant planning permission contrary to recommendation and Officer advice.  He said that the proposal was contrary to policy because of its scale and mass compared to the original building which had originally been constructed as an octagonal water tower.  It had been converted to living accommodation and altered and extended since.  The Planning Policy Manager said that extensions should be commensurate with the original building but that in this case the application would lead to the dwelling becoming three times the size of the original building.  It would therefore have a considerable impact on the landscape and reduce the number of smaller dwellings in the countryside.

Councillor TM James was of the view that the building and rebuilding of dwellings was commonplace in the countryside and that in this instance the owners were making a genuine attempt to preserve and renovate an unusual building and provide adequate accommodation to cater for the requirements of their family.  He felt that the octagon formed a central feature of the building and that the proposed extension would considerably improve its visual appearance and give it greater balance.  Councillor JHR Goodwin echoed this view and noted that the unique building was in a remote location, would not overlook any other properties and felt that the proposals would considerably improve its appearance.  There had been no objections to the application and he felt that the recommendation from the Sub-Committee should be endorsed.  Councillors Mills and Dawe were concerned at the implications for the housing stock in Herefordshire and felt that the building had already been adequately extended. The Head of Planning and Transportation said that the application constituted a significant departure from the Council’s policies and that although it appeared to be a good scheme, it was in the wrong location and did not comply with the aims of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Having considered all the implications of the application the Committee felt that because of the unique building involved, a departure could be made to the Council’s planning policies without setting a precedent and that it could be granted.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to any appropriate conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation

To inform Members of the outcome of the High Court challenge to the allocation of land for housing at Bullinghope.

It was noted that the Dinedor Hill Action Association had successfully challenged the allocation of a site for 300 new houses at Bullinghope within the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP), by way of Judicial Review.  The case was heard in the High Court of Justice in June and the judgement was that the allocation should be deleted from the UDP.  No change was made to the Settlement Boundary for Hereford because that boundary was the subject of a separate policy and the Dinedor Hill Action Association was out-of-time to challenge that policy. Although the proposed site for the 300 houses remained within the Settlement Boundary it was not   allocated for development.  This was not felt to be a problem in the judgement because the removal of the site from the list of allocations would be a material consideration in the determination of any planning application on it.  The Legal Practice Manager reported that the Council, as an interested party, had recently been served with a Notice of Leave to Appealby Bloor Homes, the proposed developers of the 300 dwellings.  The outcome of this matter therefore needed to be known before the Council could decide whether any further action was merited.

RESOLVED THAT:

(i)      the outcome of the High Court decision which is the subject of appeal be noted;

(ii)     the proposed amendments to the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan be noted.

To inform Members of the methods of public engagement, consultation and publicity undertaken as part of the Core Strategy Developing Options Paper, and to consider future consultation procedures.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report to inform Members of the methods of public engagement, consultation and publicity undertaken as part of the Core Strategy Developing Options Paper. He said that Core Strategy Options set out the vision for the County and its places for 2026, and included 9 objectives and 4 strategic spatial options. The Paper also proposed a number of “Place shaping” options including:

·       options regarding the future role of the City and market towns;

·       the strategic distribution of housing, including an indication of potential      directions of growth;

·       the potential for economic diversification;

·       retail provision in the market towns and the integration of the City      centre with the Edgar Street Grid redevelopment; and

·       any transportation infrastructure requirements

As well as the strategy options and place shaping policies, the Paper included a number of general policies which would help to manage development. This includes affordable housing, renewable energy, waste and flooding.  The Planning Policy Manager explained the process that had been involved in the participation exercise, the views expressed and the written responses that had been received.  A considerable amount of information had been received which would be disseminated and the subject of a future report to the Committee.  Councillor PGH Cutter expressed his appreciation for the invaluable work undertaken by the Officers on the matter.

RESOLVED THAT:

the Committee note the initial public response to the Developing Options paper and awaits further progress reports on the emerging Core Strategy.

26 September 2008

26 September 2008