Apologies were received from Councillors PA Andrews, AN Bridges, KS Guthrie, Brig. P Jones CBE, JG Lester and GR Swinford.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors TM James, JF Knipe and JA Hyde attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors PA Andrews, AN Bridges and JG Lester.

There were no declarations of interest made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2012.

The Democratic Services Officer advised Members of an error on page 10 of the minutes where Mr La Barre was referred to as a local resident and not the applicant’s agent. The Committee also requested that the words ‘from High Town’ be included when referring to the removal of trees in paragraph two of minute item 186.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendments detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning reminded the Committee in respect of an upcoming training event covering habitat regulations scheduled to take place on the afternoon of 27 June.

Extension to existing farmhouse and erection of garage/office/store.

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

The Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Phillips, representing Llangarron Parish Council, and Mrs Joseph, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         There was great support for the application from the local residents and the Parish Council.

·         The proposed extension would improve the amenity of the applicants.

·         The extension would improve and enhance the existing farmhouse.

·         The extension was more suitable than a new build, which would be the alternative.

·         The applicants had reduced the proposal to offer an acceptable compromise,

·         The application was in accordance with H8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan as it made good use of an existing building.

Members opened the debate by stating that the application was finely balanced and seemed to be in keeping with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was supportive of proposals that promoted sustainable developments. They were also of the opinion that the application was in accordance with Policies DR1, H18 and HBA12 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and it was further noted that the application was also in accordance with Policy H8 which related to agricultural dwellings.

The Committee noted that the functional need had been clearly met with the County Land Agent of the opinion that the farm could financially sustain a substantial farmhouse. It was noted that the existing farmhouse was small and that the extension would make it a suitable family home.

In additional to the Policies previously put forward for supporting the application, UDP Policy S1 was also referred to as the Committee were of the view that the proposals constituted sustainable development. It was also noted that the proposed extension would result in the removal of the existing portacabins which would result in an enhancement to the site as a whole as well as retaining the character of the barn conversion.

In response to the points made by the Committee, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning gave some guidance in respect of the policies referred to. He advised that the NPPF was in keeping with the UDP in as much as it encouraged the conversion of rural buildings. He added that HBA12 was clear in its aims to retain buildings rather than provide homes. He advised the Committee that the proposal would double the size of an existing dwelling and as a result of this the officers had deemed that it was contrary to policies HBA12 and H8 of the Council’s UDP.

The Committee made further reference to the NPPF and quoted paragraph 9 which referred to improving the conditions in which people live. It was noted that at present that applicants’ two teenage sons had to share a bedroom and that their conditions would be improved greatly if the application was approved.

Members continued to debate the application and were all of the opinion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Erection of 3 bedroom house.

The application was refused 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Floyd, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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 application was straightforward and should be approved.

·         The application was for a modest dwelling and would make available the applicant’s current social housing in the area.

·         The proposed plot was secluded with no overlooking issues.

·         Subsidence had been referred to in the report however this could be resolved through the removal of a number of trees which were not subject to preservation orders.

·         NPPF paragraph 2.2 indicated a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the proposed application fell into this category.

·         The Parish Council supported the application.

The Committee noted and understood the applicant’s personal circumstances and her wish to be closer to her mother in the hamlet of Upton Crews. Reference was also made to the possibility of the application being in accordance with the forthcoming Upton Bishop Neighbourhood Plan, the applicant was advised to engage with the Parish Council in respect of this matter.

In response to the reference made to a Neighbourhood Plan, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Upton Bishop Parish Council had not formally notified the Council of their intention to prepare a neighbourhood plan.

Members continued to discuss the application and noted that the proposed dwelling was of a similar scale to the existing dwelling at 1 Birtletons. The general consensus was that a small extension or annexe to the original dwelling may have been looked on more favourably by the Committee. Concern was also expressed in respect of the loss of garden space and trees as a result of the application.

In response to a point raised by the Committee, the Development Manager (Hereford and Southern Localities) advised that the Traffic Manager had recommended conditions but that these were not included in the report as the case officer had summarised his comments. In response to a further question he advised that the trees on the site were not protected through tree preservation orders.

Members went on to debate the issue of the care of elderly family members. A number of examples were given where people had wanted to move closer to their family members but had been unable to do so due to issues with Homepoint or the planning process. Some Members felt that there should be some leniency shown in the application of planning policies where people are giving up their time to care for the elderly.

Some concern was expressed in respect of the definition of open countryside in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. It was noted that there were a number of houses within the vicinity of the proposed dwelling but it was still classed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Date of next site inspection -  26 June 2012

Date of next meeting -            27 June 2012