Apologies were received from Councillors JG Lester and RI Matthews.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Rone and R Preece attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors JG Lester and RI Matthews.

7. S123556/F - LAND ADJACENT TO ROSE COTTAGE, GORSLEY, ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE.

Councillor DW Greenow, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a member of the Gorsley Baptist Church.

8. SE100966/F -PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a member of the Wye Valley AONB Advisory Committee.

8. SE100966/F -PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor J Hardwick, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was a member of the Wye Valley AONB Advisory Committee.

8. SE100966/F -PENNOXSTONE COURT FARM, KINGS CAPLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR1 4TX.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor advised that he was Chairman of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee..

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Erection of 10 no. affordable homes with associated parking, access & landscaping.

The application could not be determined as the applicant had lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination.

The Committee would have been minded to approve the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation if the appeal had not been lodged.

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.

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

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:

·         A technical report regarding the drainage issues at the site had been sent to the Planning Committee Members.

·         Members were thanked for attending the site visit.

·         There were significant issues regarding highway safety at Ivy House Lane.

·         Child safety was an important factor in determining the application.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that an appeal against non-determination had been received on Monday 21 April 2013 and as a result of this the application could not be determined by the Planning Committee. However in order to make an appropriate representation in respect of the appeal it was necessary for the Committee  to advise officers as to how they would have determined the application had they been in a position to do so.

The first member of the Committee to speak on the application was of the opinion that it should be refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. He noted the concerns of the parish council and of the local residents and had concerns regarding child safety due to the busy B road, which connected to a motorway. He also noted the concerns raised in respect of drainage and considered that as a result of these issues the development was not sustainable. He moved that the application be refused in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR2, DR3 and T8.

The Committee stated that they were not in agreement with this view and a motion to approve the application was moved and seconded. Members noted that the drainage issues had been addressed through appropriate conditions and that the development could not commence until these issues had been fully resolved. Members did have some concern in respect of the vehicular speed in the vicinity of the school and requested that a condition be added to the resolution requiring the speed limit to be reduced to 20mph. Members continued to discuss the application and noted that the development could reduce vehicular movements to the school as residents of the proposed dwellings would be able to walk to the nearby primary school.

It was noted that a site search had been underway since 2007 and that this was the most appropriate site identified in Gorsley. The debate continued with Members supporting the application. It was considered that the application would result in the area being more built up which could also lead to a reduction in vehicle speeds.

During the debate the Parish Council were strongly advised to commence work on a neighbourhood plan,

In response to a number of issues raised by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

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

The application was refused 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. During the presentation Members were given information regarding the legal background of the application including details of the judicial review; a description of the colour plan that they had been provided with which had details of the lawful polytunnels; a detailed description of each of the fields including photographs and plans as well as an update in respect of policy issues regarding the application. At the end of his presentation the Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the application would result in a large scale development in the AONB and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Beckett, representing Kings Caple Parish Council; and Mr Williams, representing a number of local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Cockburn, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Head of Neighbouring Planning addressed the Committee in reference to the judicial review lodged by a local resident subsequent to the application being granted in May 2011. He advised that the reasons initially given for the judicial review were that the Council had failed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment and UDP Policy LA1, that the Council had taken into account irrelevant issues, and that there had been a failure to declare relevant interests. He added that a second judicial review was also lodged in respect of enforcement issues. After the judicial review’s had been lodged the Council were criticised in a separate case for not having provided clear reasons for approving an application and at this stage the same reason was sought to be added to the existing judicial review for Pennoxstone Court. The Council took advice which was that there was a strong chance that the court would uphold this reason. Consequently the Council consented to the permission being quashed and this took place on 3 September 2012 with the decision being on the grounds that the Council had failed to supply sufficient reasons for approving the application. In summing up the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that Members were not bound by the previous decision, however they needed to be clear in how they reached their decision and to give clear reasons in the event that planning permission was granted.

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 contentious and required a balanced decision taking into account the needs of the business and the impact on the Lower Wye Valley AONB.

·         The application was approved, contrary to recommendation, by one vote at the October 2010 meeting.

·         The application had received representations both in support and in objection.

·         The impact on the AONB was not acceptable and the application should be refused.

·         There had been a number of complaints to the Council’s Enforcement Team regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Proposed first floor extension.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman advised Members that the order of the agenda would be changed so that application 130534/FH could be determined prior to the meeting being adjourned for lunch.

The Development Manager 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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor KS Guthrie, the local ward member, advised Members that she had no concerns regarding the application and requested that it be approved.

In response to a question, the Development Manager advised that a response had been received from Marden Parish Council which was detailed in the update sheet.

Councillor KS Guthrie was given the opportunity to close the debate but chose to make no additional statement.

RESOLVED

That subject to no objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

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

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans.

3.         The facing bricks to be used in the construction of the side wall of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policies DR1 and H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         The external cladding material to be used in the construction of the front and rear walls of the extension hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the submitted details. (Ebony Cedral Weatherboard).

Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policies DR1 and H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.         F15 No windows in side elevation of extension.

Reason for Approval

1.         It is considered that the proposed extension will appear in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area in terms of its siting, scale, mass, detailed design and materials. In addition, having regard to the disposition of nearby residential properties, it is considered that the proposal will not unduly impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. In the circumstances the proposal will not conflict with the design requirements of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, H16 and H18 together with the sustainability and good design policies and objectives contained in the Introduction and Section 7of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.         N03B  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

The Chairman advised that the meeting would be adjourned until 1:30 pm.

Change of use of farm buildings to create 3 letting holiday cottages, 1 B&B letting room & an events venue facility.  Erection of 5 demountable Geo Domes for holiday/events letting use with wc/shower facilities in a new building & communal facilities in one farm building.

The application was refused 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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Joseph, representing a number of local residents; and Mrs Compton, Chairman of Clifford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Smolas, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The application had received 112 representations with the majority being in objection to the application.

·         The surrounding area was a unique eco-system of agriculture built up iover many decades.

·         The land was serviced by a small road network which did not have capacity for wedding vehicles as well as the existing farm vehicles.

·         The proposition to force people to travel to the site by minibus was not enforceable.

·         There were no suitable passing points and vehicles could be required to reverse 100 yards or more.

·         Business diversification was vital, but this was in the wrong venue.

·         The proposed business had little chance of success with its current business plan.

·         The local community had concerns regarding the impact the application would have on the local area.

·         There were also concerns regarding the water supply.

·         The local residents could hear noise from Hay Festival, although this was accepted as it was for just 10 days and bough approximately £20 million into the local economy.

·         There were also concerns regarding light pollution.

·         The applicant needed to communicate better with the local residents and the parish council.

·         The application should be refused.

Members opened the debate by voicing their concerns in respect of the ‘events facility’ part of the application. It was considered that this usage was alien to such a rural area and that the highway infrastructure was not suitable for the proposed usage. Members discussed the proposed use of taxis and minibuses for visitors and considered that this would not be enforceable. Concern was also expressed regarding light pollution.

Members considered that the issues regarding water could be addressed through appropriate conditions

Councillor Price was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         That he had met the applicants previously and had advised them that he was supportive of a training events venue however he could not support the current larger scale application.

·         The current application was half the size of the original application but it was still too large for the proposed location.

In response to a question, the Development Manager advised Members that they could not issue a split decision in respect of the application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal represents a significant risk to highway safety and the free flow of traffic through the resultant increase in vehicular movements generated by the proposal on the local network. The proposed transport mitigation can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 34 no houses and garages together with roads, sewers and associated external 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 Philpotts, representing Holmer and Shelwick Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Cole, representing the applicant, spoke in support.

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

·         The applicant had done a lot of additional work on the revised application, which as welcomed.

·         The public speakers were thanked for their contribution.

·         The site was designated as employment land, which had al;ways been safeguarded by [revios committee decisions.

·         Live/work units would have been welcomed.

·         The site would be better suited for a community usage.

·         The traffic concerns were still valid.

·         There were also concerns in respect of street ligyhting, density, drainage, and the impact on the open countryside.

Members discussed the application and noted that a lot of work had been undertaken by the applicant to address the concerns raised through the previous application on the site. Concern was expressed that the applicants had not considered live/work units on the site and had not investigated alternative drainage systems on the site.

In response to a number of questions from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that as density had been a concern on the site previously the decision was made to remove the onsite play area from the application and upgrade the existing Wentworth Road play facility instead; that permitted development rights would be removed to address the issue of the ‘no dig layer’; and that contamination hotspots would be removed from the site to the satisfaction the Environmental Health Officer.

Members noted that there were no stand-out features to the application and that it was disappointing that there were no sustainable features incorporated into the development such as live/work units. Members discussed the Parish Plan and sought clarification as to the status of the plan in planning terms. The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that a parish plan could be a material planning consideration if it had been endorsed or adopted by the Council, however this was not the case for Holmer and Shelwick parish council’s parish plan, therefore it could not be given any weight in policy terms.

Councillor Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The Parish Plan had not yet been adopted.

·         There were 41 people employed on the site previously.

·         The decision should be made democratically.

RESOLVED

That subject to final clarification in relation to the acceptability of the proposed S106 Obligation terms,  officers named in the scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         B07 Section 106  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

Proposed new farm house.

The application was approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager 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 Farr, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         There was no objection to the dwelling itself.

·         There were no issues with ingress or egress.

·         There were no objections from local residents or the Parish Council.

·         The application had been submitted in 2011 but was withdrawn.

·         In July 2012 a further agricultural building on the site was granted.

·         The businesses had increased by 35% year on year.

·         There were 600 standard man days required to run the business.

·         The agricultural services enterprise that had been set up had grown.

·         The breeding cattle business would bring in more profit than the agricultural services enterprise.

·         There were no affordable dwellings in the area.

·         The application met the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 28.

The first Councillor to speak in support of the application noted that the business had been established and financially viable for over three years and therefore met the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan. It was however noted that an agricultural tie condition should be added to any planning permission.

In response to a question, the Development Manager advised that none of the three previous planning approvals on the site had been implemented.

Members discussed the application and noted that the applicant’s contracting equipment was all stored on the farm. Some concern was expressed in respect of the time taken for a response to be received from the County Land Agent in respect of the application.

The Committee considered the application and was of the opinion that the functional need for the development had been met. In terms of policy issues, the Committee noted that Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, DR1, H7 and H13 as well as National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 28 supported the application.

Councillor Powell was given the opportunity to close the debate but chose to make no additional statement.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition and any conditions deemed necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers.

1          Agricultural occupancy condition.

Date of next site inspection:   14 May 2013

Date of next meeting:              15 May 2013