Apologies were received from Councillors PJ Edwards and JA Hyde.

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 BA Durkin for Councillor JA Hyde.

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

Agenda item 4: 151354 – Lynders Wood, Upton Bishop, Herefordshire

Councillors PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, J Hardwick and EJ Swinglehurst declared non-pecuniary interests as members of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.

Agenda item 6: Land adjacent to Sutton Lakes Farm, Sutton Lakes, Hereford

Councillor BA Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

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 application was deferred for a site visit.

(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 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.

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:

·        The site was in the Wye Valley AONB and a site visit, which he had requested, would have been helpful.

·        The applicant’s ecological survey was inadequate and did not address the damage the proposed activity would cause or propose any mitigation.

·        Regard should be had to the concerns raised by the Woodlands Trust and Herefordshire Wildlife Trust in their representations on the adverse impact of the proposal. 

·        He questioned the business model and the number of visitors envisaged suggesting there were inconsistencies in the documentation. 

·        The proposal was not in line with policy LD2 or SS6.  It was also contrary to paragraph 118 of the NPPF; the benefits of the development did not clearly outweigh its adverse impact.

·        There were concerns about safety and the risk of arrows flying outside the site’s perimeter.   No safety assessment appeared to have been made.

·        If the application were to be approved mitigation measures should be required to protect flora and fauna.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application mention was made of the potential benefit of the business to the County but also to the importance of safety. A site visit was proposed.

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

Change of use to HMO and installation of fire alarm Grade A LD2, all bedrooms and kitchen doors to be replaced with fire doors, all walls repainted, carpets refitted, additional shower room and toilet, one internal stud wall added. (Retrospective).

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

(Change of use to HMO and installation of fire alarm grade A LD2, all bedrooms and kitchen doors to be replaced with fire doors, all walls repainted, carpets refitted, additional shower room and toilet, one internal stud wall added. (retrospective).)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry , of Hereford City Council spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr R Hizzey, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr R Stuligolwa, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        Properly licensed and managed houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) did need to form part of the county’s housing tenure and mix.  However HMOs needed to be in the right place and to be of an appropriate scale.  It was to be noted that the Council did not have a specific policy on HMOs.

·        It was regrettable that the application was retrospective.

·        The WC opened directly into the kitchen.

·        Paragraph 1.1 of the report described the area as suburban; it was in fact in a densely urban part of the city

·        It was generous to describe the area in front of the property as a foregarden.

·        The nearest car park was at Greyfriars 10 minutes walk and 700 metres away.  The report acknowledged at paragraph 6.6 that the advice of the landlord to tenants that no parking was available at the premises could not be conditioned and enforced as part of the planning permission.

·        Contrary to paragraph 4.2 of the report, paragraph 6.6 of the report stated that a bicycle store had been provided. The area to the front of the house was too small to accommodate waste bins and a cycle store.  If the store was to the rear of the property bikes would have to be taken through the kitchen.

·        It was questioned why the Environmental Health Officer had only been asked to comment on noise issues given that a number of other health issues appeared to warrant consideration.

·        There were three main issues:  amenity of neighbours, car parking and overintensification.

·        In terms of amenity Nos 59 and 63 shared drainage and it was apparent that the sewer could not cope.

·        The landlord’s statement that there was no parking for residents and their visitors could not be enforced.  Parking in the area was inadequate.  The nearest car park was often full.

·        The application was overintensification.  There was no communal space apart from the kitchen/diner.  With 6 tenants there had been a separate dining room and a sitting room.  The provision of one WC was below the required standard.

·        One of  the Core Strategy strategic objectives set out at Figure 3.1 of the Strategy was to meet the housing needs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Proposed cottage and garage.

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

(Proposed cottage and garage)

(Councillor BA Baker left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr C Nenadich, the applicant, spoke in support.

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

She made the following principal comments:

·        The site was sustainable with access to public transport, Sutton St Nicholas and Marden.

·        The site was within a cluster of houses in the hamlet of Sutton Lakes and could be regarded as infill development.

·        Marden Parish Council supported the proposal and there was evidence of local public support.

·        The proposal was consistent with the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

·        The applicant was a local resident who wanted to build a house for health reasons in a location where he could be supported by his family and friends.

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

·        The proposed dwelling was not out of character with the area, was close to Marden and could be considered to be infill development.

·        The Parish Council supported the proposal; there was local support and there were no objections.

·        A view was expressed that the applicant’s reasons for making the application were sound.  However, it was also noted that social care issues were not a material planning consideration and that there were risks in granting an application for a specific reason to meet the needs of a specific individual.

·        The proposed dwelling was in the open countryside, contrary to policy RA3, and did not meet the special circumstances in paragraph 55 of the NPPF under which such developments could be permitted. 

The Development Manager confirmed that the proposal was not tied in any way to an adjoining property.  The draft Neighbourhood Plan was at Regulation 16 stage but was still not yet a relevant consideration to which weight could be attached. Sutton Lakes was not identified in the Core Strategy as an area for development and the proposal for a dwelling in the open countryside was contrary to policies RA2 and RA3.  The development was unsustainable.  Social care issues were not a material consideration.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated her view that the proposal did represent sustainable development.

RESOLVED:  That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary.

Date of next site inspection – 12 January 2016

Date of next meeting – 13 January 2016