Apologies were received from Councillor BA Baker, CR Butler, DW Greenow, JLV Kenyon, and LC Tawn.

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

Councillor BA Durkin substituted for Councillor BA Baker, Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes for Councillor JLV Kenyon and Councillor MN Mansell for Councillor LC Tawn.

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

Agenda item 8: 141964 – Land off Madley Road, Clehonger

Councillor FM Norman declared a non-pecuniary interest because she knew one of the public speakers.

Agenda item 9: 151937 – Land Adjacent to Newlands, Stoke Lacy, Hereford

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest on the basis that he might be a distant relation of the applicant.

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest because the site had been within his former ward boundary.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 9 December 2015.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meetings held on 9 December 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no announcements.

Demolition of all existing buildings and hard standings, remediation of the site, including reinstatement or landscaping of the former canal and development of up to 120 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle and pedestrian access and associated works.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation with additional conditions and clarification regarding the draft S106 agreement.

(Demolition of all existing buildings and hard standings, remediation of the site, including reinstatement or landscaping of the former canal and development of up to 120 homes, landscaping, public open space, new vehicle and pedestrian access and associated works at Holmer trading estate, College Road, Hereford.). 

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 J Mayo-Evans, a business owner on the Holmer trading estate, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr B Stephenson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He observed that, as outlined in the presentation on the application, the loss of employment land had to be weighed against the unique opportunity for the viable reconstruction of the Hereford to Gloucester Canal.   In his view the employment land was poor quality and it was essential to take the opportunity to reconstruct the canal.

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

·        A scheme for the redevelopment of the trading estate had been allowed on appeal in 2009.  This meant that the principle of development on the site had been established.

·        The evidence on the impact on future residents of noise and disturbance from businesses that would continue to operate on part of the estate was unclear.  It was asked what assurances could be provided that the residential and business uses could co-exist harmoniously.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the risk of noise nuisance had been considered at the 2009 appeal and it had been concluded that a proposed solution would work.  The requirement to protect the development from noise nuisance was reflected in Conditions 24 and 25 as set out in the recommendation.

·        Some concern was expressed about the proposed highway arrangements.  Access from College road was to be the same as proposed in 2009, via a mini-roundabout and signalised junction over the railway bridge. Opposition was expressed to more traffic lights in the City and the environmental issues they brought.  It was also requested that highway improvements were made to the bridge to counter the present accident risk and asked whether the bridge could be improved to facilitate pedestrian and cycle use.

The Transportation Manager commented that the traffic over the railway bridge was single lane to accommodate the existing footpath in order to provide safe pedestrian connectivity.  Consideration could be given as part of the S278 process to whether there was sufficient width to create a cycleway as well.

·        There was a need for housing in the City.  It was to be regretted that the Scheme could not include affordable housing.  However, it was observed that the need for affordable housing was being addressed by identifying provision on other sites.  In contrast, the restoration of the canal could only be accomplished on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Site for residential development of up to 90 dwellings with access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

The Committee agreed that it was minded to refuse the application in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Site for residential development of up to 90 dwellings with access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  He informed the Committee that the applicants had appealed against non-determination of the application.  The Committee was being asked to indicate that it was minded to refuse the application on the grounds set out in the recommendation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Protheroe, of Clehonger Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs Costello-Bates, a local resident, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor SD Williams, spoke on the application.  He supported the grounds for refusal.

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

·        Members spoke in support of the grounds for refusal as set out in the report.

·        A concern was expressed about the treatment of proportional growth targets with reference to paragraph 4.8.21 of the Core Strategy and policy RA2 and the need for consistency.  The wording of policy RA2 itself referred to minimum targets but was silent about proportional growth.   The Development Manager commented that the definition of what constituted proportional growth had not been tested in appeal given the recent adoption of the Core Strategy.  It was considered that increases which were substantially above the minimum targets, such as in this case, would not constitute proportionate growth.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He had no additional comment.

RESOLVED: That the Committee was minded to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

1.     The application is for large-scale residential development on land adjoining the built up form of the village at Clehonger.  It is, however, considered to represent development that is contrary to the existing settlement pattern, which is almost completely contained within the boundaries created by the surrounding roads.  The development would thus make a significant, detrimental incursion into pastoral land with urbanising effects and concomitant loss of historic hedgerow.  The development is thus considered contrary to Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy Policies RA2 and LD1 as well as Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     The village Wastewater Treatment Works is operating over-capacity with the effect that additional discharge would be likely to adversely affect the conservation status of the River Wye SSSI/SAC and its tributary the Cage Brook SSSI.  In the absence of agreement between Statutory Undertaker and applicant, a solution enabling connection to the foul mains has not been found and nor has an acceptable alternative arrangement been suggested.  The Council is unable to conclude that the development would not lead to a likely significant effect on the River Wye SSSI/SAC and its tributary the Cage Brook SSSI and that on this basis the scheme is contrary to Core Strategy Policies LD2 and SD4 as well as NPPF 118, a restrictive policy, which overrides the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

3.     A legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of 28 nos dwelling houses with details of access and all other matters reserved.

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

(Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of 28 nos dwelling houses with details of access and all other matter reserved.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Bungey, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr P Harris, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The development would be to the detriment of existing properties especially three dwellings to the south of the site.  He drew attention to the height differential between Crossfield House and part of the development site.  As an outline application it was to be hoped that if it were to be approved the protection of the amenity of existing properties could be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·        The applicants were a local family providing development land for the benefit of the village.

·        There had been two public consultation exercises.  Whilst most people seemed willing to accept some development there was some disappointment over the scale of development proposed. It was feared that it would dominate existing properties and the character of the settlement.  However, he acknowledged that economies of scale played their part in considering the size of a development.  The scheme would provide 10 affordable housing units which would be of benefit.

·        A key question was what constituted proportionate development.  The proposal would provide in one development more than the minimum growth the Core Strategy envisaged for Stoke Lacy in the life of the Strategy.  There was merit in considering the possibility of organic growth on a number of locations in Stoke Lacy.

·        It was disappointing that the S106 agreement did not propose any contribution to the local high school.

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

·        Traffic speed on the A465 was a concern.  Calming measures had to date proved ineffective.

·        The possibility of phasing development was discussed.  It was noted that in economic terms this was unlikely to be viable for a small development and phasing also entailed an extended period of disruption from construction works.

·        Welsh Water had originally objected to the proposal.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that this initial objection had been withdrawn following Welsh Water’s discussion with the applicants.  Welsh Water’s response as a statutory consultee was that it had no objection.  There was also no professional objection to the proposed drainage strategy.

·        The Parish Council had expressed concerns about the scale of development, the impact on the amenity of existing residents and highway safety.

·        The development represented overdevelopment of the village. 

·        Whilst the development might appear large for Stoke Lacy, it was difficult to argue that the development represented disproportionate growth for the Parish as a whole and that was what the policies in the Core Strategy were based on.

·        Any development should be of a good quality and energy efficient.

·        The provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Proposed archery course with 3d foam animal targets on a circuit through the woods. To include a reception area, off road parking and serviced portaloo toilet facilities.

Officers were authorised to grant planning permission, subject to additional conditions and consultation.

(Proposed archery course with 3d foam animal targets on a circuit through the woods.  To include a reception area, off road parking, and serviced portaloo toilet facilities.)

(The Chairman received the Committee’s agreement to this item (agenda item 10) being considered in advance of application 151937 (agenda item 9).)

The Committee had deferred consideration of this application at its meeting on 9 December pending a site visit.

The Acting 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 F Buchanan, the applicant spoke in support of the application.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         Whilst not in the Wye Valley AONB the site was ancient woodland and policy required that ancient woodlands should be protected and enhanced.  He remained concerned that the proposed activity would have an adverse impact on flora and fauna.

·         He was also concerned about the safety of the site.  At least three of the targets required arrows to be directed towards them outwards from the site.   He was not aware of there being any independent safety report.

·         If permission were to be granted he requested that a condition be imposed restricting activity solely to archery.

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

·         The question of safety was the principal concern, in particular the proximity of targets to the site boundary and how the risk of arrows straying outside the site boundary could be reduced.

·         Signage to warn people of the potential danger of trespassing on the site was also discussed.  It was noted, however, that there was the possibility that this might attract interest contrary to the desired effect.

·         It was noted that under the General Permitted Development Order the site could be used for the proposed purpose for 28 days without any planning permission being required.  The application sought permission to operate between April-October.  The Committee therefore appeared to be being asked to grant permission for some 65 days of controlled operation.  This might appear preferable to 28 days of uncontrolled operation.

·         The site was ancient woodland and there were far better uses to which it could be put.

·         The proposal was a good idea and very few people had objected to it.

The Acting Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there were no public rights of way crossing the site.  The site was fenced with barbed wire and a locked gated access.  The Council’s ecologist had recommended conditions to protect the woodland with the route and position of targets to be controlled.  However, some other ancient woodlands were used to a far greater degree.  An additional condition could be imposed to address concerns about safety, providing for a buffer zone between the perimeter of the site and the targets and managing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

[Note:  Following determination of the above application Councillor Durkin informed the Committee of a comment made to him by the applicant as the applicant left the Chamber and requested that this incident be recorded.]

Site for proposed erection of 27 dwellings including affordable housing.

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

(Site for proposed erection of 27 dwellings including affordable housing.)

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 C Boyles, of Madley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr B Eacock, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·         He expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on the drainage and sewerage systems.

·         The road from Madley to Bridge Sollers was dangerou.  Claypits Lane was also subject to flooding from surface water run-off.

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

·         There was a clear need for highway improvements on the Bridge Sollers to Madley road including measures to allow surface water to drain away.

·         The proposal formed phase 2 of a development, although phase 1 had not yet commenced.  It was surprising that the same access was to serve both phases.

·         The footway access was also surprising.

·         The proposal would involve the loss of grade 2 agricultural land.

·         The Parish Council strongly opposed the application.

·         Welsh Water’s assessment of the application was questioned.

·         The proposal would be within the minimum growth target for the Parish of Madley in the Core Strategy.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that in proposing phase 1 of the development efforts had been made to address connectivity.  The access had very good visibility in both directions.  Resources had been allocated for improvements to the Madley to Bridge Sollers road.  The landowner had allocated land for passing bays and was also keen to assist in improving drainage. Wherever growth took place in Madley there would be extra traffic.  The road junction could accommodate the extra traffic.

The Development Manager commented that 51 more houses needed to be provided to meet the minimum growth target in the Core Strategy.  The proposal was for 27 dwellings, 9 of which would be affordable.  The density was low.  The Neighbourhood Plan, whilst a material consideration, was not sufficiently advanced to attract weight.  The draft S106 agreement provided a number of community benefits.  A suitable drainage proposal would be required prior to the commencement of any development.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns about drainage and the condition of the Madley to Bridge Sollers Road He questioned whether funding was in place to support improvements to the road.  He added that another site for housing development was under consideration.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms stated in the report, as amended by the Committee update, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant outline planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Date of next site inspection – 2 February 2016

Date of next meeting – 3 February 2016