Apologies were received from Councillor JG Lester.

To receive 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 JG Lester.

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

Agenda item 7130997/F – Land at Ufton Court Farm, Ufton Court, Holme Lacy, Hereford

Councillor D Greenow, non-pecuniary, knows the applicant.

Councillor J Hardwick, non-pecuniary, knows the applicant.

Agenda items 10 and 11 S122304/F and S122305/F – Whitehall Farm, Hampton Bishop, Herefordshire

Councillor D Greenow, non-pecuniary, knows the applicant.

Councillor J Hardwick, non-pecuniary, knows the applicant.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, non-pecuniary, knows the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2013.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Erection of four bed detached dwelling for farm manager.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  She referred to additional representations set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.  She noted that an informative needed to be added to the recommendation stating that the Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining the application.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor P Sinclair-Knipe, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There were 24 letters in support of the application, which also had the Parish Council’s support.

·         The farm needed to relocate due to encroachment from development in Hereford and the proposed farmhouse was necessary to carry out farming and ensure security.  The Council should support agriculture, families and enterprise.

·         The design and location of the property was acceptable.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The proposed relocation of the farming operation was sound and a farmhouse was needed on site to manage it and ensure security.  It was suggested that policies S1, DR1 and DR2 provided grounds for supporting the development.  A departure from H7 was justified in the circumstances.

·         It was inappropriate for a young family to have to live in temporary accommodation until agricultural buildings were on site.

·         There were insufficient policy grounds for granting planning permission.

·         It was requested that consideration be given to the opportunity for Members to be more involved in the development of planning policy, to ensure that policies enabled Members’ objectives, such as support for farmers, to be delivered transparently and equitably and that applications granted contrary to policy would then be extremely rare.

·         It was proposed that conditions should be attached to the application relating to the need for a comprehensive site plan, landscaping and ecology.

·         The size and orientation of the property was questioned.

·         There was no current farming settlement to justify the need.

·         One of the objections made in representations at paragraph 5.3 of the report was that there were other properties for sale locally that could be used.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that two properties had been discounted by the applicant because of cost and the view that they were not in close enough proximity to the farm.

·         The County Land Agent had commented in his revised comments, set out in the report, that it would be against policy to grant an agriculturally tied dwelling on the grounds of security alone.

·         The Head of Neighbourhood Planning commented that policies in the draft core strategy did permit housing in the countryside outside settlements and support agricultural businesses where this was justified. He noted that there was an existing permission for farm buildings but nothing had as yet been built.   He questioned what guarantee the Committee had, if it granted permission, that the farm buildings would be built.  The policy stated that until a business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Change of use from public house on ground floor and residential unit on first floor to a single 6 bedroom detached dwelling.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Page, a resident, and Mr Crowther, of CAMRA, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr Ranford, the applicant’s agent, 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, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         There were 3 similar establishments in competition with the Slip Tavern.  The business had been in decline since 2008.  There had been a marked decline in the pub’s profits following the refurbishment of the Walwyn Arms and its reopening in 2012. It was to be regretted that the business had failed.

·         The Parish Council objected to the proposal. There were also 36 letters/e-mails objecting to the application.

·         The National Planning Policy Framework promoted the retention of community facilities in rural areas, including public houses.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The Slip Tavern faced significant competition and it had to be questioned whether there was sufficient population to support the number of similar businesses in the area.

·         The applicant’s agent had raised the possibility of deferring the application to allow marketing through trade journals.  A proposal was made supporting this approach.  It was suggested that this would also allow time for an independent valuation of the property to be obtained.

·         The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that no pre-application discussion had been sought by the applicant and the application was premature, The onus was on the applicant to provide full information with the application.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged deferment was an option but noted that the public house had already been closed since March 2013.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be deferred for a reasonable period pending a further marketing exercise through trade journals and an independent valuation of the property.

Proposed erection of 30 no. new dwellings including 10 affordable units and associated works to provide a new access and road.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He referred to additional representations set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Vaughan, Chairman of Pyons Group Parish Council spoke.  He opposed the application.  Mrs McLeod, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr Spreckley, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the local ward member, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He referred to the planning history of the site and the grounds on which previous applications had been refused, as described in the report.  He supported the Parish Council’s comments in opposition to the application, as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

·         The Pyons Group Parish Council supported expansion of the village but not in the location proposed.  A Neighbourhood Plan was being produced proposing development in the centre of the village.  It would be contrary to democracy and the localism agenda to approve the application and detrimental to community engagement.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The application was basically the same as the one rejected by the Committee in May 2013, with the addition of a hydrology report, and the Committee should reject the application.

·         There was support for the opposition to the proposal advanced by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, as set out in section 5 of the report.

·         Canon Pyon was a linear settlement and the proposed development would not be out of place.

·         One Member commented that whilst there was still uncertainty over the hydrology, the proposed condition set out in the recommendation addressed this concern.  Some other Members commented that the concerns over flooding were significant enough to continue to be grounds for rejecting the application.

·         The Parish Council’s plans, whilst in preparation, lacked any material planning status.

·         Brownfield sites should be developed first.

·         The application should be rejected on the grounds of policies H8, S1, DR1 and DR4.

The Development Manager confirmed that the Council was short of the required five year housing land supply. The Secretary of State for Communities had stated that in the absence of a five year land supply he would grant planning applications for housing development and had done so even in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Land Drainage Officer did not object on the principle of flooding or drainage grounds, subject to the approval of surface water drainage scheme.

The Council’s Legal Officer, as a general point, reminded the Committee that any decision contrary to officer recommendation would require sufficient and relevant reasons in support.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his opposition to the application and his support for the Parish Council’s plans to meet housing needs.

A motion that the application be refused was lost.  A motion that the application be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Change of use to accommodate six mobile homes (retrospective).

The Committee approved the continued use of the six mobile homes by the current occupants, contrary to the case officer’s recommendation, subject to conditions.

(Councillor MAF Hubbard declared a non-pecuniary interest and withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Chairman advised that because they related to the same premises and the same applicant there would be a single presentation on application S122304/F, published as agenda item 10 on the agenda, and application S122305/F, published as agenda item 11 on the agenda.  There would be a single public speaking time allowed as only the applicant had registered to speak.  A separate vote would then be taken on each application.

The Development Manager - Enforcement gave a presentation on both applications.  He referred to additional representations set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.  He added that an informative needed to be added to the recommendation for application S122304/F stating that the Authority had acted positively and proactively in determining the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Rogers, the applicant, spoke in support of both applications.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Hardwick, the local ward member, spoke on both applications.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         Farm diversification was to be encouraged.

·         The Parish Council had no comment on either application.

·         Two local residents had written in support of both applications.

·         The caravans were well concealed.

·         There had been little trouble associated with the caravans.

·         He was disappointed that the applications were retrospective but in essence he supported them.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Members had undertaken a site visit and observed that the caravans were well sheltered from view.

·         It was proposed that the current occupants of the six caravans (application S122304/F) should be permitted to stay, with the caravans being removed after that point.  The Development Manager commented that it was questionable as to whether this condition could be enforced.

·         That policy provided that application S122304/F should be refused.  It was suggested that support could be offered to the current occupants to find housing and they could remain for some months while this happened.

·         The Head of Neighbourhood Development commented on the application of policy H7.

·         The Development Manager - Enforcement commented that the Committee would be unlikely to approve the building of a house in the location of the six caravans and expressed concern that granting permission would set a precedent.  He noted that there would be a period of 12 months to comply with an enforcement notice.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated support for the applications.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to the effect that: no new occupants be permitted to reside at the site; and in the event that any current residents no longer reside at the site, with the effect that a mobile home is left empty (for a period in excess of one month), the said structure be removed and subject to conditions deemed necessary by officers named in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Four mobile homes units to provide housing accommodation for seasonal workers (retrospective).

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

(Councillor MAF Hubbard declared a non-pecuniary interest and withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item.)

As stated in the previous Minute the Chairman advised that because they related to the same premises and the same applicant there would be a single presentation on application  S122304/F, published as agenda item 10 on the agenda, and application S122305/F, published as agenda item 11 on the agenda.  There would be a single public speaking time allowed as only the applicant had registered to speak.  A separate vote would then be taken on each application.

The debate on the two applications is set out in the previous Minute.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Date of next site inspection (if required) - 29 October 2013, 10.00am

Date of next meeting - 30 October 2013, 10.00am