To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors KS Guthrie and PM Morgan.

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 KG Grumbley for KS Guthrie.

Councillor Brig P Jones for Councillor PM Morgan.

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

In accordance with the Planning Code of Conduct and criteria for public speaking, Councillor SJ Robertson declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 17 (DCCW0009/1683/FDCDCC/091945/G - removal of condition 7 of planning permission DCCW2004/0209/F, proposed dwelling at 2 Lower Orchards, Burghill, Hereford ) spoke for three minutes after the Officer’s  presentation, then left the meeting.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7th August, 2009.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7th August, 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the penultimate paragraph in Minute No. 27 (DCNC2009/0435/CD & DCNC2009/0436/L - proposed removal of existing minor extensions, internal alterations and new extension to form offices and community rooms for rent at Grange Court, Pinsley Road, Leominster) being replaced by the following;

Councillor RC Hunt, one of the Local Ward Members, said that the decision to defer consideration of the application had proved to be a good one because it had given time for the applicants to arrange a public meeting where the project had been fully explained and all the concerns addressed. The black pine, which had already had to have a number of boughs removed and needed further work, would be replaced with a new one.  Although the scheme required the removal of most of the Victorian staircase, part of it would be retained and incorporated into the new scheme and photos of it would be on display in the building.  Steps would also be taken to preserve mediaeval stonework forming the ‘grotto’ situated in the grounds, into the scheme.  He had concerns that Pinsley Road should not be used for access purposes because it was too narrow.  Careful thought should be given to access and the delivery of materials via Church St when the alterations were being carried out.  Overall he felt that the proposals could now be welcomed because all the concerns had been addressed about the building and grounds, together with those raised by local residents. 

Councillor JP French, a Leominster Ward Member also felt that the recent meeting had gone a considerable way to more fully explain the proposals.  The local residents who would be most affected had been given the opportunity to speak and twelve pages of information had been provided to answer concerns.  An explanation had been govern about the condition of the black pine, a proposed 5 metre replacement, landscaping, tree planting, the creation of 21 new jobs and the provision of better facilities for visitors and tourists. The proposals would help to ensure the future of the building. Brigadier P Jones, a Leominster Ward Member also now welcomed the scheme because of the assurances given and the fact that it would bring the building back into use, and help to provide employment and tourism.  Councillor PJ McCaull, one of the Local Ward Members agreed with the comments that had been made. He felt that the layout and orientation of the scheme would minimise its impact on adjoining residents once the work was completed and although the loss of the black pine was regrettable it did require major surgery and a suitable replacement was to be welcomed.  The timber from the tree had also been earmarked to be used within projects in the Town if the proposals were approved.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman announced the arrangements for the meeting.

To receive the attached report of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 26th August and 23rd September, 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 26th August and 23rd September, 2009 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 19th August, 16th September and 14th October, 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 19th August, 16th September and 14th October, 2009 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 5th August, 2nd September and 30th September, 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 5th August, 2nd September and 30th September, 2009 be received and noted.

Ward: Credenhill

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report about an application for a new flood alleviation scheme to assist with the Edgar Street Grid development and which was aimed at improving the protection for some 115 homes and businesses in Hereford. The scheme was an essential part of the plans to improve the infrastructure in the city to provide for new leisure attractions, jobs, homes and shops. The aim was to significantly minimise the threat to those areas that were subject to regular flooding, particularly in the vicinity of the A49 at Edgar Street, the A438 at Whitecross Road,  Merton Meadow car part the County Hospital car park, Millbrook Street and Nolan Road. The scheme involved a two-metre diameter underground culvert, following the natural contours of the landscape and would divert water from the Yazor Brook at Credenhill to the River Wye, when water levels reached a pre-determined trigger point. The water would travel through the mile-long culvert before joining the River Wye to the south east of Old Weir Farm and water flow would be digitally monitored.

He reported on the receipt of the following since the report had been prepared:-

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

Stretton Sugwas Parish Council raise no objection to the minor amendment to the site area but maintained their objection to the elements of the design south of the A438.  They suggested that the design through the dingle should be a more natural solution with flows baffled with boulders and new tree planting including boulders on the River Wye embankment.

They commented that this would be cheaper, less engineered and more natural solution that will cause less disruption to farming operations during construction and reduce HGV movements on the A438.

Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member, had some concerns about access and egress to the site; the impact of the scheme on The Weir and Weir Farm and how effective the scheme would actually prove to be in alleviating flooding. He also asked about the potential dangers of contamination to the water course from the adjoining land.  He also referred to the concerns raised by Stretton Sugwas Parish Council and suggestion that the scheme was over-engineered and that there were cheaper and more practical options available.  Councillor GFM Dawe suggested that there was a need to re-visit the scheme in view of the comments and concerns that had been received.  Councillors H Davies and JD Woodward noted the benefits that would be offered by the scheme but had reservations that flooding could be increased at Greyfriars, Wye Terrace and other areas.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the considerable research that had been undertaken by the applicants who had evaluated various alternatives and studied the impact in numerous locations.  Extensive research had been undertaken into historical water flows and depths, and several worst case scenarios had been analysed using computer modelling.  It was anticipated that the scheme would change the high flood-risk areas from a one in twenty year risk to one in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

For:      PCT Per Convergence Consulting, 86a Albany Road, Cardiff, CF24 3RS

Ward: Central

The Head of Planning and Transportation said that the applicants had requested that the Committee should not consider the application because they were investigating alternative schemes within the hospital complex.  The Committee was agreeable to this request.

RESOLVED THAT:

Consideration of the application be deferred for the time being whilst the applicants are investigating alternative proposals.

For:      S & A Produce (UK) Limited per Antony Aspbury Associates 20 Park Lane Business Centre Park Lane Basford Nottingham NG6 0DW

Ward: Leominster South

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.  He reminded the Committee that at a previous meeting the application was deferred on Counsel’s advice in order that time could be given for the Officers to consider the additional representations that had been received.  The application as originally submitted related to an area of land amounting to 67 hectares of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land.  On 14th August, 2009, an amended application was recived which reduced the area to 35 hectares.  The revised scheme will mean that the tunnels are to be fixed permanently in one position rather than rotated as has previously occurred.  The planning statement supporting the application advised that there was a willingness to accept a condition precluding the siting of polytunnels on any other field parcels other than those of the application site. He outlined the main points of the application and the views which had been received during the consultation process.  He presented the following updates regarding further representations that had been received since the report had been prepared:

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

Additional correspondence has been received from Justin Sacks inventor of the LM3 methodology, submitted on behalf of Arrow Valley residents Association (AVRA).

In summary:

1.      S&A has failed to rectify previous errors for calculating the local economic contribution of Brierley Court Farm.

2.      There is no economic evidence to suggest that the Council should overturn previous decisions rejecting planning permission to S&A’s proposals at Brierley Court Farm.

3.      S&A has failed to rectify previous errors for calculating the local economic contribution of the farms under consideration.

4.            4My previous two responses have pointed out where S&A has misinterpreted, inadvertently or wilfully, the LM3 methodology and their local economic contribution.

5.           The figures S&A continues to present are for their impact as an entire business rather than the impact of Brierley Court Farm only. I have highlighted this error in the previous responses, which S&A has disregarded.

6.           Even within S&A’s calculation of its overall impact, there remain errors that I have highlighted previously that remain unchanged. For instance, their local spending figures are based on a ‘sample of local businesses’ rather than their actual suppliers.

7.           None of the figures that S&A have submitted in this latest appraisal shed any new light on the economic contribution of Brierley Court Farm to the local economy.

6.            There is no economic evidence to suggest that the Council should overturn previous decisions rejecting planning permission of S&A’s proposals at Brierley Court Farm.

7.            S&A alleges that failure to secure planning permission for Brierley Court Farm would ‘force the business to restructure and reduce numbers employed’. There is no economic basis, however, for granting planning permission to a business solely to ‘prop up’ the business if it relies on production methods considered unacceptable.

8.           The Council has already rejected previous planning applications and issued enforcement action, and S&A has presented no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

For:      S & A Produce (UK) Limited per Antony Aspbury Associates 20 Park Lane Business Centre Park Lane Basford Nottingham NG6 0DW

Ward: Leominster South

The Principal Planning Officer explained that as with the previous application, this one was deferred on Counsel’s advice at a previous meeting in order to allow time to consider the additional representations received.  The report had been updated to take account of these matters.  He advised that the number of proposed units had been reduced in relation to the reduced area for polytunnels approved in the previous application.  He said that if the polytunnels were removed, the accommodation and related facilities would also be removed.  He explained where the units would be located on the land in relation to the polytunnels and the landscaping and screening that would be undertaken by the applicants.  He also advised that the Committee should take into consideration the cumulative impact of the two applications.  He also drew attention to proposed planning condition No.5 which would impose limitations on the number of units of accommodation which would total no more than 250 with 500 seasonal workers occupying them. He presented the following updates:

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

Correspondence received from Mr Greene as chairman of AVRA.  In relation to this application the relevant paragraphs read as follows:

change of use when works are clearly contemplated (DPDS letter March 2009). Not addressed or reported properly. It is clearly not enough to say the application is flawed and incomplete without saying somewhere in the report why DPDS/AVRA are wrong. Since Counsel has considered the earlier report, one would have expected his view on the change of use to have been reported.

Bias and Consultation – Failure to report comments adequately or to consider the issues raised in them – for instance the report on the nature of the application. Equally the comment made about the nature of application DCNC2009/0168 is repeated in relation to the polytunnels. The Council have clearly not understood or considered the objections.

Failure to Review the Search for Alternative Accommodation – This was an element of the Secretary of State decision in 2004 – that less objectionable alternatives for accommodation had not been properly considered. The applicant submitted a case that it had done so now and this is reported in the committee report on DCNC2009/0168 para 6.3 – 6.11. With the halving of the required workforce the exercise needs to be reviewed but this has not been done.

In relation to the proposed conditions Mr Greene comments as follows:

Condition 2 – inadequate. “Employed at Brierley Court Farm” is insufficiently precise – anybody living in accommodation could be considered to be employed at Brierley regardless of where they are working on the day.

Condition 3 – insufficiently precise “in the opinion of the local planning authority” gives a vetting procedure to the LPA contrary to para 32 of circular 11/95 and gives no indication to the applicant (or anybody else) when the use might be considered to have ceased. A proper definition of the polytunnel use ceasing is required in the condition, but this is just poor drafting and considerably more care is needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

For:      S & A Produce (UK) Limited per Antony Aspbury Associates 20 Park Lane Business Centre Park Lane Basford Nottingham NG6 0DW

Ward: Leominster South

Please also note that at this juncture the meeting will be adjourned for lunch and will reconvene at approximately
1:30 pm

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation about an application for a sewage treatment plant to serve the accommodation for seasonal workers on the Brierley Court Farm site.

Councillor PJ McCaull asked if the pipe-work to the plant could be placed underground and the Principal Planning Officer said that this would be addressed by the licence that the applicants would need to obtain from the Environment Agency if planning permission was granted.  Councillor WJ Walling asked about the Environment Agency being consulted and the Principal Planning Officer said that this was not necessary because the applicants had to obtain a licence directly from them in respect of the plant.  Councillor RI Matthews asked what had changed since planning permission had been refused for previous applications.  The Principal Planning Officer said that permission was now essential to provide for the seasonal worker accommodation which had been approved.

Having considered the various points raised about the application, the Committee decided that it should be approved.

RESOLVED THAT:

planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

1       F20 (Temporary permission and reinstatement of land ) (10 years)

         Reason: The provision of the sewage treatment works is only considered to be acceptable as a temporary expedient in conjunction with the applicant's identified need to provide on site workers accommodation and to conform to Policy CF2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.   

INFORMATIVES:

1      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

2      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

Ward: Three Elms

A report was presented by the Senior Planning Officer about an application to vary an existing planning permission allow the vehicular hard standing off Roman Road entrance to Hereford Racecourse for the parking of vehicles in connection with a public Christmas Park and Ride service which will operate during November and December 2009.  The following had been received since the report had been prepared:

a local resident has confirmed that an accident occurred at the junction of Aylesbrook - Roman Road on 15th October 2009 and at least 2 or 3 other accidents have happened in the preceding two to three weeks.

The Transportation Manager had reviewed the additional information and does not change his recommendation on the application.

In accordance with the Council’s criteria for public speaking, Mrs Smart a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor SJ Robertson, an adjoining Ward Member, said that Holmer Parish Council had raised no objection to the application.  She said that there were however concerns about an increase in the number of accidents in Roman Road as the volume of traffic travelling along it had been steadily increasing. She also suggested that there was a need to look at the provision of a roundabout and upgrading the pedestrian crossing.  She felt that although the proposal should reduce traffic into the City, it would increase traffic in Roman Road

The Head of Planning and Transportation said that the application should be viewed in the context of a straightforward variation of a previous permission for a relatively short period of time.  The objectors had raised some valid areas of concern regarding the cumulative use of the land for other purposes and this was being carefully monitored by the officers.

Having considered the points raised, the Committee decided that the application should be approved.

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by Officers:

Informatives:

Ward: St Nicholas

The Senior Planning Officer presented a report about an application to refurbish and upgrade the existing Bicycle Motocross (BMX) track to provide improved recreational facilities, which would involve engineering operations to create new earth jumps and burms.  The refurbished track would occupy a more compact area, allowing for the western section of the existing track to be re-instated to general open amenity space.

He provided the following updates:

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

Further letter from local resident who supports small car park but requires assurance that their parking will not be impacted or that on ‘event days’ provision is made for residents parking and that the decorated metal fencing is retained.

OFFICER COMMENTS

Condition 6 covers the event days and retention of the decorated fencing is not identified to be removed.

In accordance with the Council’s criteria for public speaking, Fran White the Parks Development Manager, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor JD Woodward, one of the Local Ward Members, commended the application because it provided a popular amenity which was unique in her Ward.

RESOLVED THAT:

Subject to no further objections raising additoinal material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by Officers:

Informatives:

Ward: Frome

The Interim Head of Legal & Democratic Services reiterated the situation about personal and public interest in respect of applications from Councillors.

A report was presented by the Senior Planning Officer about an application for a wind turbine with a total height of some 19.82 metres. The mast would be a galvanised steel/silver in colour and the blades a matt black. The rated output of the turbine would be 15kW and likely to generate 30,000 kWh per year. The Community Sustainable Energy Programme put a standard useful life expectancy of 20 years on such wind turbines.  The Senior Planning Officer said that the environmental impact of the application was acceptable on all grounds. In answer to a question from Councillor WJ Walling he said that there was evidence of bat roosts in the area and that the turbine area would be closely monitored to determine if it had any impact on foraging corridors.

RESOLVED THAT:

planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Ward: Burghill, Holmer and Lyde

A report was presented by the senior Planning Officer about an application to remove a planning condition which prevented the extension of the dwelling or sheds and greenhouses in the garden without the grant of a specific planning permission.

In accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application then withdrew from the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s criteria for public speaking, Mr Dutton a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr James the applicants agent, spke in favour.

It was noted that the applicant had been under the impression that his sheds, which were modest structures and not obtrusive, did not need to seek permission for them.

The Committee did not consider there to be an adverse impact on the local amenity and that the application could be granted.

RESOLVED THAT:

That planning permission be granted:

Informative:

1            N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

Ward: Hampton Court

The senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation regarding a planning application for the change of use of agricultural land to a traveller site for one family.  The development Control Manager said that the application had been referred to the Committee because the Northern Area Planning Committee was mindful to refuse it contrary to the Council’s planning policies and Officer advice.  The Sub-Committee had concerns about the suitability of the site, its location and the eligibility of the applicant to meet traveller status.  The Sub Committee had also questioned the need for the site because there were vacant pitches on authorised Council sites and the applicant has previously confirmed (in 2006) that there was no need to reside on the site. As such, for these reasons the proposal was in conflict with Policy E15 – (Protection of Green Field Land) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  The Sub-Committee was advised that the application needed to be considered under Policy H12 (Gypsies and other Travellers) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Councillor Brown spoke against the application on behalf of Humber, Stoke Prior & Ford Group Parish Council; Mr Hubbard spoke in objection to the application and Mr Baines spoke in support.

The Development Control Manager said that together with Policy H7, the circumstances, requirements and location regarding the application enabled it to be acceptable.  Councillor KG Grumbley, the Local Ward Member, was of the view that the development was unauthorised and said that it was also the second retrospective application by the occupants.  He said that he could not support the development as he felt there was insufficient need for it. He drew attention to the fact that the existing travellers’ pitches provided in the County by the Council were under-occupied and he said that he was not satisfied that the occupants of the site fulfilled the criteria for travellers.  He therefore proposed that planning permission should be refused as he regarded it as an unnecessary development on green field land; there was no need; it was contrary to ODPM Circular 1/2006; there was more on the site than covered by the application; and that the proposal was contrary to sustainability requirements.

Councillor B Hunt was of the view that no further evidence had been offered which would support the application since it went to the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee. In addition to the points raised by Councillor Grumbley, he was concerned at the lack of conditions in the report in respect of water supply and sewage disposal.  Concerns were also raised about the erosion of the bridleway due to the applicant gaining vehicular access over it to the site; the uses that the land may be put to and why an exception should be made for the benefit of travellers which did not apply to others.  The Senior Planning Officer said that visits to the site by the Officers had not revealed any uses of it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Ward: Kerne Bridge

A report was presented by the Southern Team Leader about an application for additional facilities at an established business. The application had been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse it contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  The Sub-Committee had expressed concerns in relation to the perceived incompatibility of the children’s nursery and health and spa facilities with particular reference to the potential risk to children associated with unrestricted access by adults and the sale of alcohol.  It was considered that this was contrary to Policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  In addition there were concerns about highway safety implications regarding difficult access onto the B4324.  The proposal involved a commitment to reduce the number of nursery children from the potential 30 that the premises is currently licensed for to 10.  This reduction would offset any traffic generated by the dormitory accommodation which was also likely to generate traffic outside the times when the nursery traffic would be at its peak.  This together with the formalisation of a Travel Plan was considered acceptable by the Traffic Manager.  The Head of Planning and Transportation was concerned that the reasons for refusal might not be defensible if challenged by way of an appeal. 

The Southern Team Leader said that the applicants had provided details of their existing Ofsted licence, demonstrating that the necessary authority had been obtained in relation to the operation of the nursery.  The applicant had also explained that the proposed dormitory building was intended to provide overnight accommodation for families and groups using the health and spa facilities.  The applicants had also explained that the diversification was a response to changing Government legislation which threatened the viability of the children’s nursery.  The enhanced health and spa facilities were seen as an important tourism opportunity by the applicants.

The receipt of the following updates was reported:

ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

It has been brought to the attention of your officers that the site boundary for was incorrectly drawn along the southern boundary.  A suitably amended showing a revised site boundary drawing has been received.

The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the dormitory accommodation.

A further objection has been received from Mrs VC Stoddard, Creeds Cottage, Leys Hill.  The letter does not raise any further objection to those reported under paragraph 5.3

A further letter from the applicant has been received:

·         the Spa is pre-booked registered guests only.  Nursery children are never permitted to use the Spa;

·         CATS Nursery (OFSTED Registered) is a safe, secure environment.  Security measures include gated access, a locked door and parental/guardian sign in procedures.  The nursery is closed evenings and weekends;

·         the dormitory will be pre-booked and registered spa groups only;

·         all use of the gated and fenced tennis court is pre-booked.  Nursery children are supervised at all times by OFSTED and CRB approved staff during the day.  Guests are restricted to evenings and weekends.

·         the swimming pool is exclusively for pre-booked guests.  No nursery children are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To advise Members of the Panel Report into the Examination in Public into the Regional Spatial Strategy and its implications for Herefordshire.

Wards Affected: County-wide

The Planning Policy Manager reported that the Examination in Public (EIP) into Phase 2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) took place during April to June 2009, and the Panel of Inspectors involved published their “Panel Report” on 28th September. The Report would be submitted to the Secretary of State who although is not bound to accept the recommendations is likely to do so. Final amendments will be made to the RSS by the end of 2009 with the intention of completing the formal process during 2010. Once this process is complete, the local planning authorities in the West Midlands Region will be obliged to ensure that their planning policies (in emerging Local Development Frameworks) are in compliance with the new RSS.  The main features of the Report are:

·                     Herefordshire’s housing target for the period 2006 to 2026 has gone up from 16,600 to 18,000;

·                     within that overall target the Hereford City (and immediate environs) allocation has gone up only 200, from 8,300 to 8,500 – this is not significant over a 20 year period;

·                     the allocation to the rest of the County (including the Market Towns) has increased more significantly, from 8,300 to 9,500 – this is intended to increase supply in rural areas to improve affordability;

·                     the approach to employment allocations has been revised – whilst the five year “reservoir” of 37 hectares has been maintained unchanged, the gross figure over the 20 year period has been recommended for an increase from 111 hectares to 148 hectares – but this figure takes no account of “recycling” of employment land where employment sites are redeveloped for employment use;

·                     the retail allocation has stayed unchanged at 40,000 sq metres of retail floor space to 2021 with a further 20,000 for 2021 to 2026;

·                     a revised housing “trajectory” has reduced the number of dwellings per year to be constructed in the period to 2011 but progressively increases it after then (this will have important consequences as we move into the “Delivery” phase);

·                         all the above figures are now “Targets” and are not to be regarded as either minimum or maximum figures;

·                         whilst no specific policy is introduced in respect of the Outer Distributor Road the supporting text makes it clear that one will almost certainly be required;

·                         any relief road proposed for Leominster is regarded as a local matter and not included in the RSS because it is not strategic enough in the Regional context;

·                         the practical difficulties of dual tracking the railway line between Hereford and Malvern are such that it was not considered practical to make a policy commitment to this;

·                         amongst the general policies there is a requirement for local planning authorities to do Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and Water Cycle Studies (both of which Herefordshire has been doing anyway);

·                         there is also the introduction of a “Merton” style rule to require developments above a certain threshold to ensure that at least 10% of the energy needs come from renewable sources; and

·                         the consequences, under the Habitats Regulations,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To advise Members of the progress with the Local Development Framework and the programme for Member Briefings and Consultations on the emerging Core Strategy.

Wards affected: County-wide

A report was presented by the Planning policy Manager about developments on the Local Development Framework.  He said that the 2004 reforms to the planning system obliged each Local Planning Authority to replace its Development Plans with a Local Development Framework. In the case of Herefordshire, that meant replacing the Unitary Development Plan with Development Plan Documents set out in the Local Development Scheme. There were be three such documents at the centre of the Local Development Framework: the Core Strategy which sets out the overarching development strategy for the County; and two documents to set out detailed allocations - the Hereford Area Plan and the Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan.  The Core Strategy is due to be the subject of a final round of public consultation early in the New Year.

The Core Strategy has to look forward to the year 2026 and has, at its heart, the vision and objectives with that in mind; in addition to the Regional Spatial Strategy the Core Strategy must also sit comfortably with the Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy for which the Herefordshire Partnership Board has responsibility. Thus the new planning system required that the Core Strategy:

·                complies with the regional policies (as set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy);

·                is backed up with evidence for the choices it makes;

·                has had the full involvement of the local communities it is intended to serve; and

·                meets other legal tests such as a the need for a Sustainability Assessment and a Habitat Regulations Assessment;

7.             The policies in Herefordshire’s Core Strategy will need to cover such issues as the distribution of new housing, employment and commercial development, policies to cover the location of “social infrastructure” such as schools and health facilities, and deal with such generic matters as transportation, minerals, waste and climate change.  In order to take these issues forward the Council has published a series of evidence studies and background papers on the website.  The evidence base will soon be substantially complete. Notable recent additions to the reports on the website include the Multi Modal Model (Transportation Study), the Water Cycle Study and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Study.

The stage has now been reached to undertake the final public engagement in the process – this will be the “Placeshaping” Consultation which will help the Council to refine its policy choices.  The Placeshaping Consultation documents will be the subject of Member Briefings in the next few weeks and will be reported to Cabinet on 26th November to seek formal approval for public consultations in January, February and March 2010. Once the Placeshaping Consultation Results have been analysed the Council will then prepare the Core Strategy itself, initially to publish as a document for submission to the Secretary of State. This is expected to happen towards the end of 2010.

4th December, 2009