To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow and RI Matthews.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PJ Edwards was a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

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

There were no declarations of interest made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2010.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman introduced all of the Officers present at the meeting.

At the request of Councillor PGH Cutter, the consideration of agenda item 11 was bought forward to be considered immediately after agenda item 7.

To be noted.

The Committee noted the report.

Application (part retrospective) to erect, take down and re-erect polytunnels, rotated around fields as required by the crops under cultivation (soft fruit).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Wyatt, representing Hentland Parish Council, and Mr Thomas, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Cockburn, the applicant, and Mr Moss, policy advisor for the National Farmers’ Union, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor BA Durkin, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The case officer was congratulated for his thorough report
• The application was finely balanced between the needs of a large business and the requirement to protect an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• There was support for the application from a number of workers and local people.
• There had been a history of polytunnels being installed contrary to policy and without planning permission on the site in the past.
• A number of the polytunnels on the site had become ‘lawful through the passage of time’ as they had not been rotated as agreed in the 2003 voluntary SPD.
• The application proposed 25 Ha of covered tunnels through a structured rotation plan.
• Concerns were raised that the Council may have to ‘police’ the enterprise.
• Uncovered hoops and stands would remain when circumstances did not permit timely dismantling, this would have an impact on the AONB
• A large majority of respondents to the Kings Caple Parish Plan felt that polytunnels were causing harm to the landscape.
• A significant number of objections had been received in writing to the Council in respect of the application.
• Concerns were raised regarding the increase in HGV movements on the local roads.
• The development was not of greater national interest than the purposes of the AONB.
• The detriment to the landscape could not be mitigated through conditions.
• The application should be refused in accordance with policies LA1 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and guideline 2 of the Polytunnels Supplementary Planning Document 2008

Members opened the debate by noting the importance of the site inspection which had taken place at the site the previous day. The opening speakers voiced their concerns in respect of the application and paid particularly attention to the effect that the application would have on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; on the impact it would have on the nearby church; as well as the detrimental effect on the local highways infrastructure.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that he had not received a petition in respect of the application. He noted that a petition had been received for an earlier application on the site.

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that Garden Field had not been considered by the Inspector as polytunnels were erected on the site after the Inspector’s report. He also confirmed that an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Erection of 2 dwellings, construction of new vehicular access and associated works.

The Team Leader (South) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr McLachlin, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Smith, the applicant's agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PGH Cutter, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Concerns were raised in respect of the access to the site.
• Traffic in the area was particularly problematic during school drop off and pick up times.
• An additional two dwellings could result in a number of vehicular movements.
• The school was due to implement a 'no waiting' proposal which would have a detrimental effect on the highways infrastructure in the area.
• Concerns were also raised regarding the high hedges on the boundary of the site.
• Concerns were raised regarding the lack of consultation with the local member in respect of the Section 106 agreement.
• One dwelling would be more suitable on the site.

In response to a question regarding the hedge on the boundary of the site, the Team Leader (South) advised Members that there was legislation in place regarding the height of hedgerows but that it was complex to enforce and would come at the cost of the neighbouring residents.

Members discussed the application and had a number of concerns regarding the access to the site as well as the effect the development would have on the already busy road infrastructure. Other concerns related to the suitability of two semi detached properties on the plot and the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the neighbouring building.

In response to a question regarding the access to the site, the Team Leader (South) confirmed that a visibility splay of 43 metres had been achieved.

The Development Control Manager noted that the primary concerns expressed by members related to the access onto the site. He advised that the Transport Manager was satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions. He also added that in the case officer’s opinion the impact on the neighbouring dwelling would not be unacceptable.

In response to a question, the team Leader (South) advised members that the distance from the boundary to the proposed dwelling was 1.4m. He added that the distance between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling was 2.4 metres.

In response to a number of comments made by Members, the Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste advised that the Committee could defer the application for further discussions with the applicant regarding the possibility of a revised site layout or to discuss members’ preference for one dwelling on the site.

RESOLVED

THAT consideration of the item be deferred pending further discussions between the applicant and the Planning Department.

Retrospective re-application for change of use of land from agricultural to one family travellers site including stationing of one caravan, shed and ancillary structure.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Bailey, a resident of Wigmore, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor LO Barnett, the local ward member, asked questions and commented on a number of issues, including:

• How many ancillary units were proposed on the site?
• Would all other units be removed?
• How large was the whole field?
• Local people would not be permitted to develop on the site.
• Object to the injustice of the precedent set for traveller applications.
• Affordable housing would not be permitted on the site
• Urge the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to a number of questions raised by the local ward member, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the planning permission was for one caravan, one shed, and one toilet building and that all other units would be removed from the site. He added that there was no restriction on the number of motor vehicles permitted. In response to a question regarding the plot size, he confirmed that the site was 0.2 hectares in total. Finally he advised members that the Council was required to find an additional 83 traveller pitches by 2012.

A member of the Committee opened the debate in support of the application. It was noted that the applicant may have ceased travelling but was still considered a traveller in planning law. Reference was made to the site and the natural screening provided from the public highway. A 99 signature petition was noted and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that all signatures were from residents of Wigmore.

Other members noted the comments but felt that they could not support the application. Concerns were noted in respect of any anti social behaviour taking place on the site as referred to in the representation submitted by Wigmore Parish Council. Members also noted that the applicant had recently married and clarification was sought as to whether she intended to reside at the home her husband currently resided. Finally members expressed concerns regarding the impact of the application on the visual amenity of the area.

In response to questions, the Head of Development Control outlined national guidance and criteria considerations and re-iterated that it was for the committee to make a judgement about the acceptability of the application given the material planning considerations.

The Head of Development Control advised that the committee needed to give appropriate weight to national guidance and local planning policies which gave a degree of priority to traveller sites. It was for the committee to conclude whether all the other material planning considerations outweighed the policy considerations.

The Locum Lawyer explained the relevance of the policy considerations and commented on the authority’s obligations under the Race Relations and Equality Acts.

In response to a question  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Change of use from agricultural land to one family traveller site to include the stationing of one living vehicle, storage boxes & shed.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Bailey, a resident of Wigmore, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor LO Barnett, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The application should be refused for the same reasons as the previous agenda item.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.                  The proposal fails to protect the landscape by its very presence and is visually damaging because of its prominence in the countryside. The proposal fails to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty.  Despite the existing and/or potential screening, the development site will have a continued detrimental impact upon the character and visual amenity of the landscape.  As such the proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 and the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies H12 and LA2.

Change of use of land for stationing of caravans to provide 1 no. residential mobile home for agricultural workers employed in free range egg production.

The Chairman noted that the meeting had reached 3 hours in duration and asked members to decide on which course of action to take, in accordance with the Council’s constitution. Members decided to defer the determination of the remaining items until the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled to take place on 3 November 2010.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred.

Proposed single storey extension and alterations to car parking arrangements.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred.

Date of next site inspection -  Tuesday 2 November 2010 [TBC]

Date of next meeting -            Wednesday 3 November 2010

Members noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee was scheduled for 10:00 am on 3 November 2010.