Apologies were received from Councillors PJ Edwards, DW Greenow and A Seldon.

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

Councillor WLS Bowen substituted for Councillor  PJ Edwards and Councillor EPJ Harvey substituted for Councillor A Seldon..

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

Agenda item 7: 143769 - Upper House Farm, Moreton-on-Lugg, Hereford

Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicants.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman reported that agenda item 10: 151121 – Land off High Street, Leintwardine, Herefordshire had had to be withdrawn from the agenda.

The Development Manager explained that following a High Court decision the Government had been required to withdraw its guidance exempting development from the requirement to have a Section 106 agreement where the development was fewer than 10 dwellings. This meant that application 151121 now required a Section 106 agreement.  Consultation on that agreement would have to be undertaken before the application could be considered by the Committee.

Proposed construction of six poultry houses and feed bins, ancillary works, erection of biomass boiler building and single storey ancillary building, amendments to existing vehicular access and associated landscaping.

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

(Proposed construction of six poultry houses and feed bins, ancillary works, erection of biomass boiler building and single storey ancillary building, amendments to existing vehicular access and associated landscaping.)

(Councillor J Hardwick declared a non-pecuniary interest.)

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, as appended to these Minutes.

He added, further to the published update, that two more letters of representation had been received.  One of these had been a letter from the applicant’s agent in response to points raised by members of the Committee on the site visit.  The other had been from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

The applicant’s agent had commented in relation to drainage that the scheme included an extensive surface water management system.  Regarding odour a permit was already in place for 12 poultry units and the biomass boiler.  All matters relating to emissions and waste that would be produced from the site had been considered as acceptable and within the thresholds permitted by the Environment Agency.

The CPRE had expressed concern that the phosphate content of chicken manure was contributing to very serious pollution problems in the County’s rivers.  They had also referred to a document on the government website describing “pollution control outside of environmental permitting regulations” stating that pollution matters outside the installation boundary were not covered by environmental permit and were therefore a matter the Planning Committee needed to consider. 

The Development Manager highlighted a slide in his presentation containing an odour modelling plan, showing the area that would be affected to varying degrees by odour.

He also drew attention to the Environment’s log of complaints and its response to those complaints set out at appendix 1 to the report.

In relation to the impact of the development on the setting of listed buildings he referred to the comments of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) as reflected at paragraph 4.9 of the report.  He remarked that that the Conservation Manager had had the opportunity to assess these matters, however no objection to the application had been received from him.  The Development Manager added that the visual impact of the development was limited given the distance between the development and the two listed buildings to which the Conservation Manager had referred and the fact that a modern housing estate lay between the development and those buildings.  He did not consider, having had regard to the provisions of the relevant legislation, that the development had a substantial or significant impact on the listed buildings causing them significant harm,

The applicant had amended the application following officer comment on landscape and drainage and the consultation on these amended proposals was reflected in the report.  There were no significant issues to resolve in relation to either drainage or environmental issues, only matters of detail.

In order to ensure that the conditions attached to any planning permission, if granted, were tailored to be specific to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application.

(Site for proposed residential development for 35 houses.)

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.

He added that if the Committee was minded to approve the application he proposed that an informative should be added stating that the proposed layout of the scheme was not acceptable and it must be ensured that the amenity of properties adjoining the site was protected.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Pendleton, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr K Wheeler, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr C Goldsworthy, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PJ McCaull, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        The access to the site was situated at a dangerous corner.  There had been a number of accidents and near misses in that location.  There would also be traffic management issues within the site itself.

·        He questioned the figures contained in the Transport Statement accompanying the application regarding the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate.  He considered the figure to be too low.  The surrounding area already suffered from traffic problems.

·        There were many houses for sale in Leominster.  He doubted whether there was a demand for more housing to be built.

·        The site was surrounded by residential development with no public open space.  The local community had expressed a wish for the land to be used to create a green open space, with a wildlife garden and other elements including redevelopment of a former pond.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        There were visibility problems with the access.  In part these were caused by parked cars.

·        The development should be considered as infill development.

·        Road travel in the area was problematic.  The roads were narrow.  Two Doctors surgeries in the area added to the traffic difficulties.

·        Air pollution in the Bargates area was acknowledged as being of concern. Traffic measures agreed almost 3 years ago, including replacement of the traffic lights with “smart” versions, had not been implemented.  Any proposal that would increase traffic in that area should be rejected.

·        The assessment of the number of additional vehicle movements the site would generate appeared to be too low.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on existing residents of the area.

·        An application in 2003 for a smaller development on the site had been refused. 

·        The site was outside the settlement boundary.  In opposition to this point it was observed that the Authority had already granted planning permission for a number of sites outside settlement boundaries having regard to national government policies as expressed through the NPPF.

·        There was support for the land to remain as open space.  It was noted in response, however, that the land was privately owned.

·        The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Proposed alterations to roof, replacement of existing roof vents with noise suppression louvres. Acoustic panel surround and silencers to chiller units.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with an additional informative note.

(Proposed alterations to roof, replacement of existing roof vents with noise suppression louvres. Acoustic panel surround and silencers to chiller units.)

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 R Pendleton, of Leominster Town Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr and Mrs Domanski, local residents, spoke in objection.  Mr P Cooke, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor JM Bartlett, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        The recognition that there were issues to rectify was welcome.

·        The report stated that planning permission was not required for the new unit itself. The principal issue was whether the works were the best solution to the noise problems being caused by the factory, representing best practice and the use of the best techniques.

·        UDP policy DR13 required this type of development to include appropriate measures to mitigate noise impact to an acceptable level.  There were still a number of issues for the applicant to address in relation to noise.  She therefore requested that in line with Leominster Town Council’s representation, if permission were granted, following completion of the proposed works the applicant should be required to undertake a noise assessment of the site to ensure that the measures had worked.

·        BPI was important to the economy of Leominster and of the County as a whole.  BPI had recently met the Town Council.  It was to be hoped that if permission were granted, with the proposed condition, links between the two would continue to improve.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Noise from the factory was clearly affecting local residents.  The proposed improvements should be approved and then subjected to regular monitoring to ensure that they were effective.

·        Low frequency sound was very intrusive and difficult to track.  The company appeared to be trying to address the issue and its efforts should be supported.

·        The noise from the factory had caused considerable distress to local residents.  Local confidence in the company’s actions to address the problem had been shaken.  A condition requiring monitoring of the new measures would contribute to rebuilding that confidence.

·        It was asked why the report expressed such confidence at paragraph 6.4 that the measures proposed would have a positive impact.  The Environmental Protection Service Manager commented on work undertaken by the Service and by the Company with consultants.  Noise would continue to be an issue for some residents because it was difficult to completely silence a factory.  However, the firm had co-operated with the Service and he considered that the proposals were good.

·        The Development Manager commented that a condition of the type being proposed would be unenforceable. An informative note could be added requesting the applicant to undertake monitoring, but a requirement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Proposed residential development of 10 no dwellings.

This application was not considered, pending a further consultation exercise.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda, pending a consultation upon an S106 agreement, for the reason set out in Minute no 31- Chairman’s announcements.

Date of next site inspection – 1 September 2015

Date of next meeting – 2 September 2015