Members stood for a silent tribute in memory of Councillor JD Woodward who had recently passed away.

Apologies were received from Councillors RC Hunt and PJ Watts.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson and AW Johnson attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors RC Hunt and PJ Watts.

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

Further guidance will be available to Members in respect of Pecuniary Interests under the Localism Act 2011.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised Members that until the new Code of Conduct was adopted by Council, Members should continue to declare both Personal and Prejudicial Interests and that by declaring a prejudicial interest, as set out in the current code of conduct, they would also be declaring a pecuniary interest as defined by the Localism Act.

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

Councillor GJ Powell, Prejudicial, The Councillor declared a prejudicial interest as the relevant portfolio holder in accordance with paragraph 7.5.13.7 of the Council's Constitution.

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

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, Personal, The Councillor works with disabled children throughout the County.

8. S113607/O - TIDNOR WOOD ORCHARDS, TIDNOR LANE, LUGWARDINE, HEREFORD, HR1 4DF.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor has previously grazed sheep on the site.

8. S113607/O - TIDNOR WOOD ORCHARDS, TIDNOR LANE, LUGWARDINE, HEREFORD, HR1 4DF.

Councillor PJ Edwards, Personal, The Councillor is a trustee of the Cider Museum.

9. S121015/N - LAND NORTH OF PENHELIGAN HOUSE, PONTSHILL, HEREFORD.

Councillor AM Atkinson, Personal, The Councillor is a member of the Wye Valley AONB board.

9. S121015/N - LAND NORTH OF PENHELIGAN HOUSE, PONTSHILL, HEREFORD.

Councillor J Hardwick, Personal, The Councillor is a member of the Wye Valley AONB board.

9. S121015/N - LAND NORTH OF PENHELIGAN HOUSE, PONTSHILL, HEREFORD.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, The Councillor is Vice-Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB board.

10. N120896/F - TYRRELLS COURT, STRETFORD,  LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE HR6 9DQ.

Councillor DW Greenow, Personal, The Councillor supplies potatoes.

11. N121483/F - SOUTHVIEW, WINFORTON, HEREFORDSHIRE HR3 6EB.

Councillor JW Hope MBE, Prejudicial, The applicant is the Councillor's niece.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2012.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

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

The application was approved 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, 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. He commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The local authority was committed to providing the best education and care to young people throughout the county.

·         Blackmarston School had grown and was still over crowded despite the addition of temporary classrooms.

·         The proposed extension would be adequate in addressing the long term growth of the school.

·         A new school, as referred to in the previous meeting, would cost in excess of £20m instead of the £4.6m required for the extension to the existing school.

·         The updated report detailed the reasons why the proposed sites at Aylestone and Whitecross would not be suitable as well as including an update from Sport England regarding their objection.

·         The proposed site was affordable and future proof and should be approved.

Councillor Powell left the Council Chamber immediately after speaking and took no further part in the debate.

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

·         The case officer was praised for a thorough report and a recommendation based on her interpretation of the key policies.

·         There was a need for a special school and it had to be the best facility available.

·         A full investigation had been requested to address concerns throughout the application process.

·         Sport England’s comments had to be taken into account.

·         Public money had to be spent correctly and transparently.

·         Meetings of school governors should be more transparent and quarterly reports should be submitted to the Council.

Councillor R Preece, another of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There was clearly no alternative plan, a fact that was confirmed through the additional information submitted following the previous deferral.

·         The Council could not afford a new school so the proposed extension to the existing school was in the best interest of all parties.

·         There were currently 70 children in a school designed for 40.

·         There had been four objection letters received from three neighbouring dwellings, there concerns were valid and needed to be addressed.

·         Any screening should be commenced at the earliest opportunity to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring residents.

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

·         The choice of which school to send their child to was an important decision to any parent.

·         No parent would want to send their child to a school which was above capacity and bursting at the seams.

·         The concerns of the three neighbouring residents were valid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Proposed three bedroom detached agricultural dwelling.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

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 added that the update sheet contained details of drainage concerns and that the Council were unable to grant permission until these were resolved.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Davies, representing Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council, and Mr May, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and Dr Dowling, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection.

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

·         The site visit had been beneficial in making a judgement in respect of the site.

·         The comments from the County Land Agent were endorsed.

·         Need to take all comments received from all parties into consideration prior to making a judgement.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee proposing that the application be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. Unitary Development Plan Policy H8 was quoted in support of the application. It was considered that the other reasons for refusal contained within the report could be overcome.

Other Members were of the opinion that the application should be refused in accordance with the recommendation as the need for a dwelling on the site had not been demonstrated and the drainage issues had not been overcome. The impact the development would have on the nearby conservation area was also quoted as a reason for refusing the application.

The Committee discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the drainage on the site and also in respect of the lack of a clear financial case for a dwelling on the site. It was also considered that measures securing the long term retention and management of the orchard should be pursued.  The applicant was advised to address these issues in consultation with the case officer prior to the application being bought back before the committee at a later date. The Democratic Services Officer was asked to advise the Committee in respect of the Council’s Constitution. He advised that under standing order 4.1.16.24 a motion to adjourn the debate could be moved whilst another motion was under debate.

RESOLVED

That the determination of the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

Sewage pumping station, including control kiosk and associated works.

The application was approved in accordance with 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, Mrs Lewis, representing Weston Under Penyard Parish Council, and Mr Evans, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Pitt, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The application site was in the centre of Pontshill.

·         The requirement for the water treatment plant was due to the Environment Agency finding the previous sceptic tank utilised for four former council houses at Woodview unacceptable.

·         The proposed water treatment plant should be located at Woodview, and could be sited on part of the large gardens of the four dwellings.

·         The report referred to a previous application which was refused on the site, however the reason for refusal on the previous application was highway issues.

·         The treatment plant would be more central to the village if situated at Woodview.

In response to comments from the local ward member, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposed sewage pumping station could in the future serve the whole village and not just the four dwellings referred to in the report. She added that the site had been proposed as it had an electricity supply and was also near to a watercourse, a requirement for a water treatment plant.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the concerns of the local ward member and the local residents in respect of the location of the proposed facility. However it was further noted that large tankers would have to travel through the village if the facility was relocated to the garden area of the Woodview dwellings as proposed by the local ward member. It was also considered that due to the majority of the treatment plant being underground, the visual impact in respect of the site would be minimal with the highest structure being just 1.45 metres in height.

It was noted that the proposed water treatment plant was a large facility for four dwellings however it was appreciated that Welsh Water were applying for a facility that could meet the future needs for Pontshill.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the applicant had stated that it would not be technically feasible to move the treatment plant to Woodview due to the lack of a watercourse. Members noted that a plant of the type applied for would not be viable at Woodview but that a biodisc and soakaway system could be viable and could meet the needs for the four dwellings in question.

One member of the Committee noted that the Committee had previously requested mapping information for mobile phone masts and that similar information for sewerage units throughout the county would also be welcomed. He also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Change of use of Building 1 from agricultural building to storage; change of use and adaptation of old factory building (Building 2) from offices and storage to offices, storage & manufacturing.

The determination of the application was deferred pending further discussions with the applicant.

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, Mrs Ford, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Worrall, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The local community supported Tyrell’s as a brand and a company but they had clearly outgrown their current site.

·         The proposed development would have an impact on neighbouring residents due to traffic, odour, noise and light pollution.

·         There had been in improvement in respect of the smell of popcorn in the vicinity recently.

·         Tyrell’s should look into moving their operation to either the enterprise zone in Hereford or the Enterprise Park in Leominster.

The Committee discussed the application with some members of the opinion that the operation had clearly outgrown its existing site. It was suggested that Tyrell’s should therefore seriously consider moving either part of or all of their production to an industrial environment, the Enterprise Park in Leominster was referred to as a suitable location by one Member.

The Committee made significant reference to the transport issues on the site with some members of the opinion that the transport plan should be amended to only allow vehicles to exit the site in one direction. The Development Manager advised the Committee that the Transport Management Plan had been approved via a condition as part of an earlier application and could not be amended through the current application.

The issue of odour was discussed but members were advised that existing odour issues on the site could not be addressed as part of the application in front of them and that they needed to therefore determine the application on its merits.

Councillor Cooper was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

·         There was a clear odour of popcorn in the vicinity of the site.

·         The Council should support local enterprises but Tyrell’s had become a full scale production site.

·         There would be further applications on the site in the future.

·         Tyrell’s should be encouraged and supported in moving their enterprise to a purpose build facility.

A motion to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation was lost. The Committee debated the possibility of refusing the application due to it being contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies T8 and DR4 but were advised that neither reason would be defendable at a planning appeal. The Committee therefore deferred the item for further information.

RESOLVED

That the determination of the application be deferred for further information.

Erection of agricultural storage / general purpose building.

The application was approved in accordance with 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.

RESOLVED:

That 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

3.         The external colour of the roof shall be coloured a dark grey colour, or other dark colour approved in writing with the local planning authority prior to any development on site.

Reason: In consideration of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Approval:

1.         The development is of a scale and design considered acceptable for the location of the development with no significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape with adequate justification for the requirement for the development.

The development considered acceptable in relationship to surrounding residential amenity and privacy issues, and is also considered satisfactory in relationship to public highway issues.

The development is considered to be in accordance with policies of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan, key policies of which are Policies S1, DR1, DR2, E13 and LA2. The development is also considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Date of next site inspection:   7 August 2012

Date of next meeting:             8 August 2012