The Chairman paid tribute to Councillor RC Hunt and PJ Watts who had both recently died and offered condolences on behalf of the Committee to their families.  The Committee observed a silence in their memory.

Apologies were received from Councillor DW Greenow, MAF Hubbard and JG Lester.

To receive details of any Member 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 JA Hyde attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor JG Lester and Councillor AJW Powers substituted for Councillor MAF Hubbard.

Agenda item 7: 131529/F Land adjacent to Tadpole Cottage, Eardisland, Leominster, Herefordshire

Councillor FM Norman commented that she knew the applicant and some objectors and declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the Council’s appointments to the Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

Councillor JW Hope MBE declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the Council’s appointments to the Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the Council’s appointments to the Lugg Internal Drainage Board.

Agenda item 9: 140290/0 Land adjacent to Barberry House, The Row, Wellington, Herefordshire

Councillor KS Guthrie commented that she was a work colleague of the applicant and declared a non-pecuniary interest as a resident of Wellington, although she emphasised that she did not live near the application site.

Mr M Willimont (Head of Development and Environmental Health) declared a non-pecuniary interest as a resident of Wellington and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

New sustainable live/work dwelling with ancillary outbuilding.

Authority was granted to approve the application, subject to further clarification of aspects of the application, and to attach amended conditions as necessary.

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.  The update included an additional proposed condition.  The Principal Planning Officer added that if the Committee was minded to approve the application it was also proposed that permitted development rights be removed.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr A Sheffield of Eardisland Parish Council spoke in broad support of the Scheme.  Mrs C Aldred, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mrs M Albright, 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, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He noted that the Parish Council supported the application subject to conditions being met.  However, a number of local residents were concerned about the proposal.  The principal concern was that the development would exacerbate flooding problems experienced in the area.  There was evidence that the site had flooded and the Environment Agency had not taken account of this.  The numerous drafts of the report indicated a level of uncertainty about the scheme and the published report was inconclusive and did not provide categoric assurances to discount the potential flood risk.  In his view the flood risk assessment should be discounted.  Whilst the proposed building might itself be above flood waters, the technical assessments could not prove that water would not be displaced to the detriment of neighbouring properties

·         He suggested that if the Committee was not minded to refuse the application a deferral should be considered to allow further consideration of the technical aspects of the scheme.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application stronger conditions were required.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer commented that the site was not classified as an isolated dwelling because it was immediately adjacent to the village and the settlement boundary.  Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did not therefore apply.  He considered that the proposal would help to sustain and grow an existing local business in accordance with paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

He added that the technical advice from the Environment Agency was clear.  The Agency did not object to the proposal, did not consider that the scheme would cause further flooding and in fact concluded that the scheme would provide flood betterment.  The Agency had also taken the unusual step of having its advice independently reviewed. 

Technical advice was that the proposed biodisc system was acceptable.  Its resilience if there were to be flooding was questioned.

The risk of flooding and the displacement of floodwater was a concern.  There appeared to be some contradiction in the report with the suggestion that the site would not flood sitting alongside a requirement for a flood evacuation plan.  Paragraph 6.15 of the report stated that significant parts  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

Erection of 6 no. broiler rearing units with associated control room, feed bins and hardstandings and the erection of a storage/boiler building.

The application was approved 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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms H Philpotts, Clerk to Burghill Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr T Bromley, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr J Verdin, the applicant, spoke in support.

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:

·         Agriculture was important to the County but farmers had to work with neighbours.

·         The scheme was sustainable providing produce for Cargill based in the County, reducing food miles and ensuring food traceability..

·         He highlighted the representations and the internal council advice set out in the report.

·         He noted that a sequential site selection test had concluded that the proposed site was the most suitable as referred to at paragraph 6.3 of the report.

·         Mitigation measures were set out at paragraph 6.5 of the report and the applicant had indicated he would invest further in these if required.

·         The access was considered acceptable.

·         The report stated at paragraph 6.21 that the development complied with relevant policies.  He supported the recommendation for approval.

The Chairman also permitted Councillor SJ Robertson, an adjoining ward member, to speak.  She outlined concerns about road safety on the A4110.  She also commented on the smell and noise that would be associated with the development and noted that there were fifty letters of objection.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Some concern was expressed about the nature of the development and its impact.  However, it was also noted that whilst the development would have an impact the applicant had taken all possible steps to seek to mitigate it.

·         The site was separated from dwellings by at least 400m.

·         Paragraph 6.3 of the report stated that the sequential site selection test had concluded that the proposed site was the most suitable.

·         It was requested that mature trees be used in any relevant landscaping work.

·         Concerns were raised about the cumulative impact of HGV movements and the apparent lack of information on this within the supporting documents and the report.

·         A view was expressed that road safety problems were not necessarily related to HGVs but also to car users.

·         In response to a question, the Development Manager advised that the decision to move away from potato production and into poultry whilst clearly impacting upon HGV movements was a commercial decision and not one that could be controlled by means of a condition.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his earlier comments.

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

Proposed erection of 2 no. 4-bedroom houses and 1 no. 2-bedroom bungalow with associated landscape works.

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

(Mr M Willimont declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the room for the duration of this item.)

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, Mrs J Gowan, Chair of Wellington Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr A Hughes, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Thomas, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

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, highlighting the response of Wellington Parish Council published in the agenda papers.  He questioned the feasibility of the technical solution to the access which relied on a neighbour making land available.  He praised the work of the Parish Council in developing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

The debate opened.  The Council’s lack of a 5year housing land supply was noted.  However, the consensus was that, having regard to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the adverse impact of the development would outweigh the benefits that the limited amount of housing development would provide.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He acknowledged the grounds for refusal set out in paragraph 3 of the recommendation.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.            The development of this application site, by virtue of the site’s location and topography,  would result in a form of development that would adversely impact upon the character of the area that also has significant landscape and biodiversity value and interest and that forms part of the setting of the settlement of Wellington contrary to Policies LA2, LA3 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.            The application would lead to the loss or partial loss of important trees that form part of a UK priority habitat contrary to the requirements of Policies LA5, NC1 and NC6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. The application does not provide sufficient information in order to demonstrate that an enhancement and benefit could be secured and as such does not comply with the requirements of Policy NC8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.            The proposed development, by virtue of the site’s location, topography and relationship with neighbouring properties, would represent an overbearing and intrusive form of the development that would potentially impact upon privacy and amenities currently enjoyed contrary to Policies DR2 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

Provision of a pedestrian and cycle link between the southern end of Station Approach and the northern end of Canal Road. Requiring demolition of existing store building in builders merchant. Proposal includes street lighting and associated landscaping.

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

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the application.

Some Members questioned the value and purpose of the application but it was also recognised that the application had to be considered on its individual merrits.  The Development Manager confirmed that the application was a small element of a larger plan.

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

Informatives:

Date of next site inspection – 3 June 2014

Date of next meeting – 4 June 2014