Apologies were received from Councillors RC Hunt, Brig P Jones and JG Lester.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

Agenda item 9: Sollers Hope Farm, Sollers Hope Court, Herefordshire.

Councillor PGH Cutter declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor BA Durkin declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as he knew the applicant and was a Member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Agenda item 11: 13214/F Land to the South of Eastfields Farm, off U94021, Bodenham, Hereford.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as he knew the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 February, 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 February, 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reported that a seminar for all Councillors on the 5 year housing land supply had been arranged for the afternoon of 22 April.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

It was asked why in the case of application 130182/F the appeal had been dismissed but an award of costs had been made against the Council.  The Development Manager explained that the Planning Inspector had accepted some of the grounds for refusal of planning permission advanced by the Council and hence had dismissed the appeal.  However, he had not accepted some of the other grounds for refusal and had therefore made a partial award of costs against the Council

 It was requested that Members be informed at regular intervals of the cumulative costs being awarded against the Council at appeals.

Site for erection of nine houses and associated development.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with additions to the content of the Section 106 agreement

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which had been deferred by the Committee on 12 February 2014, highlighting the updates to the previous report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Burridge, Vice-Chairman of Credenhill Parish Council spoke on the Scheme. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution,   Councillor RI Matthews, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

The offer of the applicant’s agent set out at paragraph 6 of the report responded to the local community’s wish to see a bus layby established to improve highway safety.  The owner of the land required for the layby had indicated that they would release the necessary land.

He referred to a number of e-mail exchanges with Council officers and the police which he asserted emphasised the highway safety issues at the location and the extent to which these would be mitigated by the provision of a bus layby.  He reiterated that evidence from the Safer Roads Partnership recorded more accidents in the location than had been reported to the Committee.  He therefore supported the use of all the S106 money to provide a bus layby.  If this were not agreed he requested that the Committee refuse the application on highway safety grounds.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The principle of the development had to be supported given the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing supply.

The site visit had proved useful in assessing vehicle and pedestrian movements and the need for improved highway safety was clear.

The provision of the bus layby would address the concern about highway safety and all the Section 106 money should be allocated for that purpose.

The Transportation Manager had not objected on highway safety grounds.  It was questioned whether allocating all the Section 106 money for the provision of a bus layby was therefore necessary and the best use of those monies and whether, for example, the Parish Council could help to fund the layby instead.  The report stated that there was a risk that the scheme to provide the layby might not be achieved and that in that event after 5 years the Section 106 money, if allocated solely for the layby, would be returned to the applicant.

The Development Manager commented that it would be open to the Committee to provide in the Section 106 Agreement that if the layby scheme did not come to fruition the section 106 monies would be redirected to other purposes as set out in the original draft Heads of Terms provided..

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and supported the approval of the application on the basis outlined by the Development Manager.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement (in accordance with the Heads of Terms attached as amended in accordance with the provision listed after condition 27 below ) planning permission be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Proposed erection of 12 affordable dwellings, comprising a mixture of 2 and 3 bed houses.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, which had been deferred by the Committee on 11 December 2013, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs A Cooke, Chair of Much Birch Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K James and Ms R Rigby, residents, spoke in objection.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor J Norris, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

He was critical of the application, remarking on an absence of consultation and that he had not been kept informed of any negotiations following the Committee’s decision to defer the application..

The application failed to address the request that there should be a footpath to the A49 to Much Birch.  This footpath was vital.

He had sought without success to find a solution with the landowner.

The design of the affordable housing was poor. 

The site was a greenfield site.

He disputed the Transportation Manager’s comment at paragraph 4.2 of the report that the proposed footpath linked to Wormelow.

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) did not support the proposal as set out at paragraph 4.3 of the report.

He questioned the statement in paragraph 4.5 of the report that the Housing Association had held various consultation events with the community.

Contrary to the applicant’s agents response at paragraph 5.5 of the report there was not a shortfall of pupils in Much Birch primary school.  The school was full.

A further deferral was not an option.  He therefore requested that the Committee refuse the application.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The application should be refused on the grounds of highway safety and inadequate pedestrian access to Much Birch,  the main village which residents of the development would wish to access.  It was likely that the occupants of the affordable housing provided for in the development would have to walk their children to school.  The development was unsustainable. The principle of the development, the National Planning Policy Framework and the absence of a 5 year housing land supply did not outweigh these concerns.

It was suggested that landscape impact, drainage and biodiversity, identified alongside highway safety and pedestrian access at paragraph 6.1 of the report as key considerations in the determination of the application, also represented grounds for refusal.

The design of the affordable housing was poor.

There was a need for traffic management measures in Tump Lane and, although not within the remit of the planning application, it was important that they were not overlooked.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate and requested that the application be refused.

The Development Manager commented that when first presented to the Committee officers had recommended refusal of the application on the grounds of pedestrian safety and that the development was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Construction of a 6,000 bird ‘free range’ egg production unit.

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

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, as appended to these Minutes, including a recommended additional condition. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Perlman, a resident, spoke in objection.  Miss C Harness, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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:

Farmers did need to diversify.  However, he noted that the Land Agent had raised concerns about the viability of the proposed scheme.  Two schemes for a 12,000 bird egg production unit on the site had previously been refused.

He was an enthusiast for the AONB and the AONB Unit had concerns about the Scheme.  The NPPF paragraph 14 and footnote 9 and paragraph 115  provided  grounds for refusing the application.

The AONB unit had accepted that the building would be well screened.  However, it was concerned about the impact on the local character of the landscape and the detrimental impact on the experience of visitors to the area.

The highway infrastructure was poor.  Even with the proposed restriction on the size of vehicle servicing the development to 26ft a significant size of passing place would be needed to permit a tractor and trailer to pass in the opposite direction.  Six passing places were proposed and he was concerned about the cumulative impact on the AONB. 

This was a large intrusion on the AONB and an attractive hamlet.

There was concern that the development might contribute to an increased risk of flooding.

The development would create odour, noise and nuisance.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

Farm diversification should be supported.

The restrictions on access were acknowledged.  However, this was to be expected given the location of most farms.

Unsurfaced and unmaintained passing places had in effect already been created by general use.  The creation of properly constructed passing places would be of benefit to all road users.

The proposed restriction on lorry size was necessary.

The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had commented in the report that, “the change in visual impact would be negligible.”

There was debate as to whether the flood risk would be increased.

In response to questions officers commented that the Section 106 Agreement would ensure that passing places would be constructed to the appropriate standard and would enable the Council to ensure that the egg production Unit could not begin operating until the passing places had been constructed.  The Agreement would also limit the size of the lorries collecting eggs to 26ft. No control could be exercised over vehicles already servicing the site.  Enforcement would be reliant on local monitoring. The design of the free range area would be subject to condition and had not been indicated on plans.  The area could be easily accommodated within the landscape and standards were specified by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Two storey detached dwelling and garage on part of Beer Garden and car park to Public House.

The applicant withdrew this application in advance of the meeting.

The applicant withdrew this application in advance of the meeting.

Erection of agricultural workers dwelling with garage and new vehicular access.

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

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Jackson, of Bodenham Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Corbett, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Millar, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

The way in which the use of the former farmhouse had been dealt with and the current breach of Regulations referred to at paragraph 6.4 of the report had caused residents and the Parish Council to have some concern about the current application.

He acknowledged the rationale of the Planning Officer’s report. 

He suggested that the concerns of the local community could be addressed by deferring consideration until an alternative site nearby had been considered.  If the application were to be approved enforceable conditions should be attached to ensure that what was proposed in the application was delivered in practice.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

There were no material reasons to refuse the application and planning guidance should be followed.

Concern was expressed about the way in which the ownership of the former farmhouse had been arranged in breach of a planning condition, as described at paragraph 6.5 of the report.

The Development Manager commented that if the Committee was concerned, occupancy of a new dwelling could be restricted to someone working on the farm and the property could be tied to the farming enterprise by a Section 106 Agreement.  This could prevent the selling away or transferring of the property to other persons not connected to the business.

He considered that a suggestion that, if not required for an agricultural worker the property should become affordable housing in perpetuity, would represent a different proposal to the application before the Committee and it would be inadvisable to consider attempting such a course. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He welcomed the proposed action to address some of the Parish Council’s concerns.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement to tie the property to the farming enterprise and the following conditions:

Development of 50 new dwellings of which 18 will be affordable.

The application was refused, 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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr G Davies, Vice-Chairman of Bartestree and Lugwardine Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Ms L Rowberry, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs S Griffiths, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

Maintaining the separation between the two villages of Bartestree and Lugwardine was important. The report stated at paragraph 4.6 that the scheme proposed would occupy the one remaining clear and undeveloped area between the two villages.

The Conservation Manager (Historic buildings and Conservation) had commented that the development would be contrary to policy HBA4.

An application for 50 houses was too big.  The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had identified 25 units on this site.  An allocation of 190 houses had been identified for Bartestree and Lugwardine over 20 years. Several applications were pending which could mean the area having 118 houses built within two years.

Some recent applications for small infill housing developments had been supported locally.

He criticised the proposed location of the affordable houses within the development.

There were concerns about highway safety and pedestrian safety.

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) had expressed several reservations about the development including questioning whether its sustainability had been demonstrated as defined in UDP policies S1 and S2.

There was a concern that flooding would be increased.

There was no public open space provided within the development itself.

Better applications would come forward which would command local support.  The views of local people should not be overridden simply because of the absence of the 5 year housing land supply.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

The Conservation Manager (Landscapes) and the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings and Conservation) had both been scathing about the development.

The housing land supply situation was acknowledged.  However, whilst the Home Farm, Belmont appeal had concluded that the Council was not meeting the 5 year housing supply the appeal had been dismissed on the grounds that the development was inappropriate in the setting. Herefordshire was characterised by the fact that, outside the City and the Market Towns, settlements had not converged. Policy LA 3 was clear that convergence did not have to be supported.  The strength of local opposition to the development and the convergence it brought between Bartestree and Lugwardine was clear. The Conservation Manger at point 4.6 on page 106 of the agenda papers had concluded that, “In principle it is considered that the development of the greenfield site for housing would be detrimental to the legibility and character of Bartestree and Lugwardine.”

The development was overbearing and the impact too severe.  It was questioned whether such big blocks of development were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Site for proposed dwelling.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application for a site visit and consideration at a future meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Winnell, of Sutton St Nicholas Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K Lawton, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Goldsworthy, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor KS Guthrie, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

She disagreed with a number of points made by the Planning Officer, commenting that the laneway had deteriorated and there would be an increase in traffic and adding that the application may be a case of one house too many and contrary oa a number of policies.  She requested that a site visit be undertaken in order for Members to reach an informed decision on the matter.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Extension of time to planning permission DMCW100570/F – Golf Driving Range, Golf Shop and fencing and floodlights.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Humphreys, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors PA Andrews and EMK Chave, two of the three local ward members, spoke on the application.  Both indicated their support.

The Committee noted the advice that it had to consider the application before it and that questions of land ownership that had been raised were a separate issue.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Date of next site inspection – 1 April 2014

Date of next meeting – 2 April 2014