Apologies were received from Councillors JW Hope MBE, Brig P Jones CBE, G Lucas, RI Matthews and PJ Watts.

To receive details of any 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, Councillors AJM Blackshaw, AM Atkinson, AW Johnson, R Preece and P Rone attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors JW Hope MBE, Brig P Jones CBE, G Lucas, RI Matthews and PJ Watts.

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

The following declarations of interest were made:

7. S102921/ O - LAND TO THE EAST OF HOLYWELL GUTTER LANE, HAMPTON BISHOP, HEREFORD, HR1 4JN.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor rents a farm from the developer.

7. S102921/ O - LAND TO THE EAST OF HOLYWELL GUTTER LANE, HAMPTON BISHOP, HEREFORD, HR1 4JN.

Councillor JLV Kenyon, Prejudicial, The Councillor is a member and sponsor of the rugby club.

8. S120539/CD - BLACKMARSTON DAY SCHOOL, HONDDU CLOSE, HEREFORD, HR2 7NX.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, Personal, The Councillor is Chairman of 'Riding for the Disabled'.

8. S120539/CD - BLACKMARSTON DAY SCHOOL, HONDDU CLOSE, HEREFORD, HR2 7NX.

Councillor RC Hunt, Personal, The Councillor declared an interest due to his involvement in Westfield School, Leominster.

9. N121311/F - LEADON COURT, LITTLE LEADON, FROMES HILL, LEDBURY, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR8 1HT.

Councillor J Hardwick, Personal, The Councillor knows the applicant.

9. N121311/F - LEADON COURT, LITTLE LEADON, FROMES HILL, LEDBURY, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR8 1HT.

Councillor JG Lester, Personal, The Councillor knows the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2012.

Members noted the correction to the minutes made at the Planning Committee meeting on 6 June 2012 and asked for further clarification to be inserted to make it clear that they wished for the trees to be replaced in High Town.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Development of grass and all weather sports pitches, clubhouse, indoortraining building, car parking and landscaping supported by enabling residential development of 190 units.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He added that 3 further letters of objection had been received after the updates sheet had been produced. These letters had been submitted from previous objectors and raised no new material planning considerations.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Townson, representing Hampton Bishop Parish Council, and Mr Westoby, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Griffiths, the applicant, and Councillor JLV Kenyon, the neighbouring ward member who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the application, spoke in support. Councillor Kenyon left the Council Chamber immediately after speaking and took no further participation in the debate.

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 benefits to Rugby in Herefordshire were not argued, however the proposed location was wrong and there were access and highways issues with the proposed site.

·         The only way the application could go ahead was through the requirement of 190 dwellings.

·         The application was in open countryside in a rural approach to the city.

·         The area was an important area of the Wye Valley and was only serviced by a B road.

·         The Parish Council and the Objector had both voiced their concerns and their comments should be noted.

Prior to the debate the Principal Planning Officer was asked a question in respect of the requirement to consider Brownfield and Greenfield sites for housing as outlined in the recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework. In response to the question the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the NPPF required the Council to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land as well as a 5% buffer. He added that there was now a requirement to consider releasing Greenfield and Brownfield land outside of the settlement boundary and that the NPPF stipulated that housing proposals should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Committee opened the debate by voicing their disappointment that the application had been bought back before them, however they appreciated the reasons for this as outlined in the Officer’s report. They discussed a number of key policies and made the following comments:

·         Policy RST10 of the Unitary Development Plan which related to major sports facilities highlighted the importance of regional and sub-regional facilities. It was accepted that there were no other alternative sites which were viable, suitable and available.

·         The proposal was in keeping with policy T8 of the Unitary Development Plan as the site was sustainable with good public transport links.

·         Policy NC6 of the Unitary Development Plan in terms of biodiversity was also addressed through the protection of the orchard.

·         The application was also in accordance with both policies LA2 and LA3 of the UDP in terms of landscaping and the setting of the settlement. Also within 3-5 years the organic status of the retained orchard would be established enhancing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

An extension, part single storey and part double storey to existingschool building, with associated landscaping and incorporating amendments to layout and appearance of existing school.

The application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant and appropriate consultees.

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.  She added that a petition containing 1251 signatures had been received in support of the application on the morning of the meeting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Bailey, the Head teacher for the school, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor GJ Powell, the Cabinet Member for Education and Infrastructure, addressed the Committee in support of the application in accordance with paragraph 5.13.7 of the Council’s Constitution. Councillor Powell left the Council Chamber immediately after speaking and took no further participation in the debate.

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

·         The school was moved to its current location in the 1990’s after previously being located on Ross Road.

·         The school was built for 40 pupils but now accommodated in excess of 70.

·         64 of the signatures on the petition came from people who lived in close proximity to the school.

·         The school was clearly above capacity, a fact confirmed by the LEA, with no viable alternative option apart from an extension to the existing site.

Councillor P Rone, another of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit had highlighted the scale of the proposal.

·         The extension to the school would be 24 metres away from the nearest dwelling.

·         The school was only open during the week and was not used at weekends.

·         The need for the extension was apparent.

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

·         The application would have a negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and should be moved onto the playing field of the neighbouring Marlbrook School.

·         Sport England have not formally objected and should be approached by the applicant with a view to relocating the extension on the school field.

·         The new vacant former Whitecross High School had been designated for a primary school and would be a more appropriate site.

·         The proposed extension to the school may need to be extended further in the future.

The Committee discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the close proximity of the proposed extension to the nearby dwellings, that the planned capacity would not be sufficient to meet future needs resulting in further extension being necessary, and the overdevelopment of the site. Members asked for the determination of the application to be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant and Sport England in order to establish if the proposed extension could be relocated into a small area of the playing field of the neighbouring Marlbrook School.

The Committee also discussed the possibility of relocating the entire school to either the now vacant former Whitecross High School site or any other appropriate site within the City.

Councillors Preece,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To erect a new building to be used for a mixed use for the purposesof agriculture and to install a wood chip boiler to provide a heat source to the dwellinghouses known as "Leadon Court" and "Little Leadon".

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

The 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.

Councillor JG Lester sought advice in respect of a possible interest in the application. The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised that Planning Committee Members would not necessarily have a personal interest in a fellow Member’s planning application by virtue of the fact that they regularly met at public meetings or were members of the same political party. She added that something more than a political acquaintance was required in order for a declaration of interest to be required. Following the guidance Councillor Lester declared a personal interest in the application.

Members noted that the application had only come before the Committee as it had been submitted by the husband of a Councillor. It was further noted that the application would have been approved under delegated powers had this not been the case.

RESOLVED:

Subject to there being no material planning issues raised by the outstanding consultation responses planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission).

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason for Approval:

1.         The proposed development is considered to be acceptable by the Local Planning Authority as it is well sited, well designed and of an appropriate scale and appearance in the context of the site.  It is also considered to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and will not harm the amenities of nearby residential dwellings.  As such the development is considered to comply with Policies S1, S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR4, E13, LA2 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Date of next site inspection - 17 July 2012

Date of next meeting -            18 July 2012