Apologies were received from Councillors G Lucas, RI Matthews, GR Swinford and PJ Watts.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JA Hyde, R Preece, CNH Attwood and P Sinclair-Knipe attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors G Lucas, RI Matthews, GR Swinford and PJ Watts.

9. DMN/111770/F - LAND ADJACENT TO 4 VALENTINE COURT, CANON PYON, HEREFORD, HR4 8NZ.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor knows the farmer who farms the land.

10. DMS/113120/F - MARSH FARM, TANHOUSE ROAD, UPTON BISHOP, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 7UP.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, The Councillor knows the applicant.

11. DMS/112643/F & DMS/113213/G - WESTHOLME, FOWNHOPE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4NN.

Councillor J Hardwick, Personal, The Councillor is a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Board; owns land adjacent to the site; and knows the applicant.

11. DMS/112643/F & DMS/113213/G - WESTHOLME, FOWNHOPE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4NN.

Councillor JA Hyde, Personal, The Councillor is a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Board.

11. DMS/112643/F & DMS/113213/G - WESTHOLME, FOWNHOPE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4NN.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, The Councillor is a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Board.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2012.

Councillor DW Greenew advised the Committee that his declaration of Interest had been incorrectly recorded in respect of application DMN/111770/F as he did not know the applicant but knew the farmer who farmed the land.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

An outline application for the erection of up to 127 dwellings (35% to be affordable) with all matters except access to be reserved for future consideration.

The determination of the application was deferred pending a further information report in accordance with paragraph 5.13.10.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He advised the committee that the principle of development on the site had been established in the UDP and had been reaffirmed in 2010 when the policy was saved. He added that the objection in respect of the allocation of the site for housing had been heard by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State at a Public Inquiry who had concluded that the land was suitable as a residential allocation.

In summing up he confirmed that the inspector had stated that there was no technical evidence to indicate that the allocation for residential use was inappropriate. He added that the application before the Committee was for outline permission and that therefore the only issues for consideration were the technical issues and the vehicular access.

Members were advised of amendments to three of the conditions contained within the Officer’s recommendation of approval for the application. It was also noted that following further consultation four additional trees had been added to the negotiated scheme.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davis, representing Bromyard & Winslow Town Council, and Mr McGladdery, speaking on behalf of some of the local businesses who had objected to the application, both spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hewitt, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The Town Council had debated the pros and cons of the application at length over a considerable amount of time.

·         The UDP could be amended by a resolution at Full Council.

·         The land had been designated for industrial usage prior to 2007.

·         The allocated industrial land at Linton was not, or was unlikely to be, deliverable.

·         The application failed to address three key points in respect of density, the increase in traffic along Tenbury Road, and noise.

Councillor JG Lester, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had proved beneficial and the attendees were thanked.

·         The application would have a detrimental effect on industry in Bromyard.

·         The application highlighted the issues resulting in siting two incompatible land uses in close proximity.

·         The applicant had worked closely with Polytec Holden, which was noted and welcomed.

·         The Inspector’s report stated that the site could accommodate 87 dwellings yet the application was for up to 127 dwellings.

·         The applicant was unable to predict further noise that could result of new machinery or operations at the nearby industrial estate.

·         The application was contrary to Policy H2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

·         Businesses on the industrial estate could be afraid to expand their operations due to neighbour concerns in respect of noise.

·         The proposed bund would not address the noise concerns adequately.

·         The original objections in respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Retrospective planning application for the retention of an existing bund and its remodelling with appropriate engineering works and landscaping of the remodelled bund.

The determination of the application was deferred.

The Committee noted that the application was linked to the previous agenda item which had been deferred pending a further information report. It was therefore felt that it would be in the interest of all concerned to defer the determination of the application until such a time that application DMN/111899/O was determined.

RESOLVED

THAT the determination of the application be deferred.

Erection of 14 no. affordable homes on Greenfield site including required access and services.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Drew, representing Pyons Group Parish Council, and Mrs McLeod, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Miss Wright, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site proposed by the Parish Council and the local residents in their submission should be considered.

·         The exception to Unitary Development Plan H10 was only valid if there were no other suitable sites within the settlement boundary.

·         The Committee could focus on the UDP or could embrace the themes coming from the LDF and the Localism Act.

·         The proposed layout was contrary to UDP policy DR1.

Members discussed the application and felt that the site inspection had been extremely beneficial in assisting them in addressing the concerns raised by the local residents and the parish Council. They also thanked the Principal Planning Officer for highlighting the alternative site proposed by the Parish Council during the site visit.

The Committee noted that a hedge was proposed to be removed as part of the application and it was felt that this could have a detrimental impact on pedestrian safety.

In response to a question, the Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services advised that if the application had been for open market housing it would have been contrary to policy however as it was for affordable housing it fell into an exception category. He advised Members that they should determine the application on its merits as a rural exception.

Members continues to debate the application and felt that the concerns raised by the Parish Council and the local residents would be given significant weight in determining the application.

The issue of density of the proposed site was also raised with the committee of the opinion that 14 dwellings on the site may result in over intensification.  Members also questioned whether the design of the development was in keeping with the village of Canon Pyon with a number of Members expressing concern in respect of the layout of the proposed dwellings, with the gable end adjacent to the road.

Members appreciated the sustainable aspect of the proposed development and welcomed the inclusion of photovoltaic solar panels as part of the application. It was also noted that the application was on a bus route, further enhancing the sustainable nature of the proposal. However it was still considered that the application site was not in the right place and that the site should be protected.

In response to a question regarding the proposed replacement footpath, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it would be widened to two metres.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Demolition of existing remains of farmhouse & attached barn and rebuild new dwelling to match existing.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was an error in the title of the report and that ‘Tanhouse Road’ should be amended to read ‘Tanhouse Lane’.

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:

·         He agreed with the Officer’s report.

·         The refurbishment to the house and barn was welcomed.

·         The Parish Council was also in support of the application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of one year from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to reflect the decision of the local planning authority on 4 March 2009 to suspend (effective from 1 April 2009) the requirements of the Authority's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2008) in relation to all employment developments falling within Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005, the employment element of any mixed use development and residential developments of five dwellings or less.

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         D05 Details of external joinery finishes

5.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

6.         H09 Driveway gradient

7.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

8.         H12 Parking and turning - single house (2)

9.         G09 Details of Boundary treatments

10.       E02 Archaeological survey and recording

11.       I18 Scheme of foul drainage disposal

12.       The recommendations set out in the ecologist's report dated October 2011 should be followed in relation to the identified protected species (bats and birds) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  Prior to commencement of the development, a full habitat enhancement scheme and working method statement should be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.         HN01 Mud on highway

2.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

3.         HN05 Works within the highway

4.         N11C General

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

Proposed erection of two dwellings.

and

Discharge of planning obligation – SH920169PO erection of one bungalow.

Both applications were approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

He advised the Committee that the report now made reference to a linked application in respect of the discharge of the existing Section 106 Agreement on the site. He advised Members that there was a restriction on further development of the site as a result of the Section 106 Agreement granted in 1992 at a time when the site was outside of the settlement boundary. He added that the site now fell within the settlement boundary so the Section 106 Agreement served no purpose.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Clark, representing Fownhope Parish Council, and Mr Jolley, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The planning history of the site, including the Section 106 Agreement, had to be considered when determining the application.

·         The site fell on a highly visible piece of green open space at the gateway to the village.

·         The proposed application failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area and was therefore contrary to UDP policies HBA6 and HBA9.

·         The proposed application was also contrary to UDP Policy LA5 due to the loss of several trees on the site.

·         The application was a concern to the local residents and the Parish Council, whose comments should be noted.

·         The proposed dwellings were too large in scale.

Members discussed the application and felt that the site visit had proved beneficial in assessing the application and highlighting the concerns of the local residents. The existing Section 106 Agreement was noted but the Committee was of the opinion that planning policy had changed and that the site was now contained within the settlement boundary and therefore the Section 106 Agreement should be discharged as per the application.

Some Members of the Committee had reservations in respect of the design of the development and felt that a single storey development on the site would be more acceptable and would also appease the concerns of some of the neighbouring residents’ concerns.

Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, was given the opportunity to close the debate and reiterated his opening remarks.

RESOLVED

In respect of DMS/112643/F that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F07 Domestic use only of garage

5.         F17 Obscure glazing to windows

6.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

7.         G07 Protection of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order

8.         G03 Retention of existing trees/hedgerows

9.         G12 Hedgerow planting

10.       H03 Visibility splays

11.       H09 Driveway gradient

12.       H13 Access, turning area and parking

13.       H27 Parking for site operatives

14.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Date of next site inspection -  21 February 2012

Date of next meeting -            22 February 2012