Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, RC Hunt, PJ Watts.

To any details of 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, Councillor P Rone attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor BA Durkin.

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

9. 130321/F - Land at Station House, Stoke Edith, Hereford, HR1 4EY.

Councillor AN Bridges, Disclosable Pecuniary, The Councillor is an employee of Network Rail who had objected to the application.

8. N123540/F - Tyrells Court, Stretford, Leominster, HR6 9DQ.

Andrew Banks (Officer), Non-Pecuniary, The Officer knows one of the objectors outside of work.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2013.

The Democratic Services Officer advised that Councillor Knipe had requested an amendment to the minutes in respect of application number 130351/F. He had requested that the bullet point stating that “Correspondence started with the Council in 2008” be replaced with “Hereford Eco Village was incorporated in 2008”.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Assistant Director Economic, Environment & Cultural Services addressed the Committee prior to the case officer’s presentation. He drew their attention to four matters, namely the Planning Inspectors decision regarding the previous application; issues regarding costs; the relationship between the UDP and the LDF and localism/neighbourhood planning and the decision making process.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application covering a number of issues, including:

·         There were 7 trees on the site which would be protected through tree preservation orders.

·         The application was for outline permission with only the access to be determined at this stage.

·         The shortfalls of the previous unilateral understanding were explained and members were advised that this had now been replaced with a Section 106 agreement which was enforceable,

Updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. The Principal Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the response from the Independent Noise Consultant who had found six reasons why he considered the noise report commissioned by the Town Council to be unsound.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Page, representing Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Wilson, the applicant’s agent, 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’s sound engineer had responded to the comments in the Members’ update sheet with the following points;

•               PPG24 had been used as it was the main document referred to in the report. The NPPF which had replaced PPG24 did not contain guidance for the control of noise. The NPPF guidance also stated that applications should be approved or denied following consultation with local inhabitants, had this been done?

•               The Colin Waters report was not referenced in the AVT report, however the Colin Waters report was also based on PPG24

•               The substitute background survey location was agreed with Mr Thorne of Acoustic Associates, a consultant employed by the applicant.

•               The noise control measures would not reduce the intermittent noise from the fork lift trucks and therefore the +5dB penalty should still be applied.

•               BS4142 should not be used when both the background and rating noise levels are both very low. In this case only the background noise level was considered as very low so BS4142 was still appropriate.

•               PPG24 and BS4142 both considered external noise levels. BS8233 was used to assess internal noise and was not used to assess the impact on amenity and therefore was not used.

·         The 2007 Inspector’s report stated that it would be an economic disaster if future complaints led to a move from Polytec Holden.

·         The application could be refused if material planning considerations outweighed the benefits of the application. Noise was a significant and material planning consideration.

·         The minutes from the UDP working group shows that officers were concerned about noise levels.

·         In February  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Adaptation and change of use of storage building (building 7) for storage and manufacturing, additional car parking, external storage tanks and the erection of a 26 metre odour stack and associated infrastructure.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation subject to an additional condition regarding the installation of CCTV.

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 Simpson, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Telford, 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 residents support Tyrell’s as a brand but had concerns in respect of further development on the site.

·         Members’ attention was drawn to a greetings card of Dilwyn highlighting the landscape.

Members were generally in support of the application; however they noted the concerns raised by the Transport Manager and the Conservation Manager. The success of the Tyrell’s brand was recognised but Members had sympathy with the neighbouring residents who voiced concerns in respect of the application and the operation as a whole.

The Committee noted the applicant’s comments stating that this would be the final development on the site. This statement was welcomed as the committee considered that any further development would be difficult to support.

The current transport issues around the site were also discussed. Members noted that the applicant had offered to provide CCTV on the site in order to monitor the compliance of the existing traffic management plan. This was welcomed and the Committee requested that the provision of CCTV be a condition of any planning approval on the site.

Members continued to discuss the expansion of the existing site. A number of Members voiced concern in respect of any additional development with the suggestion being that Tyrell’s should consider relocating to an industrial unit within the County. Other Members noted that the Tyrell’s brand had been built on a farm diversification and considered that the business needed to remain on its existing site.

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

·         The Committee needed to note the concerns of the Traffic Manager.

·         Tyrell’s already had a storage unit on Enterprise Park in Leominster. They should consider relocating more of the business to this site.

·         There has not been enough dialogue between Tyrell’s and the local residents.

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 development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the first chimney stack approved on the site to service existing production plant in building 3, as approved under application reference N121981/F, is fully implemented and operational.

Reason: In order to ensure that existing odour mitigation measures are implemented before any further development occurs on the site, and to comply with Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         The chimney stack hereby approved shall be coloured a matt grey/blue colour, the precise detail of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Proposed re-building of former railway station to form 2 no. holiday units.

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 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 application was supported by the Parish Council and the local residents.

·         The applicant had liaised with the community in bringing forward an acceptable application.

·         Network Rail felt that a solution could be found.

Members were advised that the application had only come before Committee as it was contrary to policy.

RESOLVED

That subject to the resolution of Network Rail’s outstanding concerns, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation be authorised to issue 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.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F30 Use as holiday accommodation

5.         H13 Access, turning area and parking

Informative:

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.

Date of next site inspection - 16 July 2013

Date of next meeting - 17 July 2013