Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Shire Hall, St Peter's Square, Hereford, HR1 2HX
Contact: Tim Brown, Democratic Services Officer
Note: Please note that because of technical difficulties a recording of this meeting is not available.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence.
Apologies were received from Councillors G Andrews, Rone, Seldon and Stone.
It was noted that since the publication of the agenda papers it had been confirmed that Councillor Foxton had been appointed to the Committee, filling one of the two vacancies.
To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.
Councillor Bolderson substituted for Councillor Rone, Councillor Harrington for Councillor Seldon and Councillor Millmore for Councillor Stone.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations of interests in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.
Agenda item 6: 174269 – Brook Farm, Marden
Councillor Hardwick declared an other declarable interest because he knew the owner of the farm.
Agenda item 8: 182617 – Land adjacent to Cawdor Gardens, Ross-on-Wye
Councillor Hardwick declared an other declarable interest because he was a former member of the Wye Valley AONB Joint Advisory Committee.
Agenda item 9: 191229 – 25 Quarry Road, Hereford
Councillor Kenyon declared an other declarable interest because he knew the applicant’s agent and left the room during discussion of this item.
Councillor Millmore declared an other declarable interest because he had served on a Parish Council with the applicant’s agent for some years.
It was noted that the agent was a councillor on Herefordshire Council and as such was known to all other councillors.
Mr Bishop, Lead Development Manager, declared an other declarable interest because the applicant’s agent had at one time worked for the Planning department.
To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 10 April 2019.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 10 April 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
To receive any announcements from the Chairperson.
The Chairperson outlined some procedural points, welcomed members to the committee’s first meeting since the elections and wished them well in their role.
Proposed modification to existing agricultural building to accommodate a biomass boiler, including flue.
The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.
(Proposed modification to existing agricultural building to accommodate a biomass boiler, including flue.)
The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 Brook, of Marden Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Guthrie, spoke on the application.
She made the following principal comments:
· Marden was a rural village served by a small road network of unclassified and C class roads. The applicant’s business had expanded and become industrialised rather than agricultural. There was concern about the cumulative impact of more heavy goods vehicles on the road network.
· The infrastructure in and around Marden could not cope. Residents were fed up with noise and traffic problems.
· Leystone Bridge, grade 2* listed, had regularly been damaged by HGVs. When flooding closed one access route, Moreton on Lugg Bridge also grade 2* listed had to carry the traffic suffering the same risks.
· The Parish Council did not consider the site to be appropriate for an industrial biomass boiler. This would increase the industrialisation of the site.
· She was concerned about the cumulative effect of emissions on air quality referring to the existing boilers and heat and power unit described in paragraph 1.2 of the report. The Parish Council (PC) had highlighted in its representation that no data was available on the effect of emissions on local residents in adverse weather or wind directions. There must also be concern for the health of the workforce in and around the site.
· It was unclear how emissions would be reduced. She questioned how transporting the woodchip into the site could be considered sustainable.
· The PC had also noted that the applicant had stated that the deliveries would occur in the winter months. However, there was concern that heating could be used at other times in the event of poor weather, exacerbating traffic, noise and pollution problems.
· Residents of a nearby property, Woodbine House had been affected by noise.
· Noise from the boiler and heavy goods vehicles would also affect the three rivers bridleway presenting a particular danger to horse riders.
· There were a number of grounds for refusing the application: the cumulative effect of increased traffic including damage to roads and the grade 2* bridges, the boiler stack being significantly higher than the other buildings, increased noise levels from machinery and traffic and potential harmful emissions having an adverse effect on nearby residents and workforce. The proposal was contrary to Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) policies M7 M10 and core strategy policies MT1 and RA6. The development did not represent sustainable growth and was contrary to the environmental objective of the National Planning Policy Framework. It did not protect and enhance the environment, improve biodiversity, or help to minimise waste and pollution. It did not help climate change. Residents and the ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.
The Committee deferred consideration of the application.
(Application for approval of 1st phase reserved matters for the erection of 275 dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only.)
(Councillor Bolderson left the meeting during consideration of this item and did not vote on it.)
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 a further communication from Ledbury Town Council had been received since the publication of the committee update and read that to the meeting. This is included with the updates appended to these minutes.
In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr J Bannister, of Ledbury Town Council spoke in opposition to the scheme. Mr P Kinnaird, a local resident, spoke in objection as did Mr S Humphrey of Oruna Ingredients UK Ltd. Mr S Stanion spoke on behalf of Barratt and David Wilson homes in support of the application.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor I’anson, spoke on the application.
She made the following principal comments:
· A disruptive level of noise was unacceptable.
· There was an onus on the factory to do what it could to ensure noise was not unacceptable for existing properties behind it.
· She had not been approached by residents about noise at the development site.
· The overwhelming wish of residents was that the current eyesore was resolved together with road issues that were presenting an accident risk with no speed restrictions in place as required by a Traffic Regulation Order with effect from 1 May 2019.
An adjoining member, Councillor Harvey, also spoke on the application. She made the following principal comments:
· The site contravened Core Strategy policy LD1. Ledbury had a made Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) so there is no presumption in favour of development. All requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF were met. Ledbury could more than fulfil its target for housing delivery under the Core Strategy, were the application to be refused.
· There remained an opportunity to bring forward an acceptable development but this required more work.
· She was concerned that there were many instances in the report where statutory and internal consultees stated that their previous concerns had not been addressed, that because of the state of the documentation they could not see clearly what was being proposed or that without their earlier concerns being answered they were unable to make further comment.
· Regarding Policy H3 – ensuring an appropriate range and mix of housing, the Ledbury local housing market assessment (HMA) underpinning the core strategy stated that Ledbury required 2 & 3 bed housing, but the application remained skewed towards the delivery of 4 & 5 bedroom homes which no-one locally would be able to afford, making it likely occupants would be commuters or retirees from outside the county – replicating the demographic issue facing the county as a whole.
· In the detailed consent quashed in the High Court, there was ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.
The Committee approved the application in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation with additional conditions.
(Proposed residential development of 32 dwellings of which 13 will be affordable homes, ecological corridor, separate public open space and provision of access enhancements together with partial (almost total) demolition of former railway bridge.)
(Councillor Bolderson had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.)
The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) gave a presentation on the application, consideration of which had been deferred at the previous meeting, 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 Park, a local resident, had been registered to speak in objection. However, as she had been unable to attend the meeting a statement she had submitted was read out on her behalf. Mrs S Griffiths, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Stark, spoke on the application.
He made the following principal comments:
· The main issue was weighing the value attached to the retention of the railway arch against the benefits of the development.
· He had explored whether the arch could be retained as a feature of the development. The expert advice contained in the report indicated no real support for retention of the arch and the report concluded that the proposal resulted in less than substantial harm to heritage assets.
· The Fire Authority’s response set out at paragraph 5.5 of the report indicated that demolition of the arch was required to provide an acceptable access. The risk to safety otherwise was unacceptable.
· Whilst the expert view was that the arch did not have architectural and historic merit it was a landmark and did have a social value locally. Most of the objections to the development related to the arch demonstrating the value attached to it. However, this had to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme.
· The development would provide 13 affordable houses. There would be a financial contribution from the developer. The Charity owning the site, whose purpose was to provide affordable rental property, would receive funds which it could use in support of this aim to the Town’s wider benefit.
· In relation to the developer contribution to Wye Valley NHS Trust he requested that this should be allocated to Ross-on-Wye, and in particular to support the Minor Injuries Unit.
· The report’s conclusion was that the benefits of the development outweighed the social value associated with retention of the arch. He sought the Committee’s view.
In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:
· A Member reported that he had received a comment from the Director of the Victorian Society (the statutory amenity body advising on matters of planning affecting heritage assets for the Victorian period) to which weight should be attached accordingly. This stated that: “The Cawdor Arch is physical evidence of an important - but increasingly invisible - part of Ross-on-Wye's nineteenth century history. It is also, ... view the full minutes text for item 8.
Proposed two storey and lean-to single storey extensions to the side (north) elevation.
The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.
(Proposed two storey and lean-to single storey extensions to the side (north) elevation.)
(Councillor Bolderson and Councillor Paul Andrews had left the meeting. Councillor Kenyon declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)Councillor Foxton fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)
The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Foxton, spoke on the application. She spoke in support of the application considering it to be in keeping with the area.
Councillor James proposed and Councillor Polly Andrews seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation. The motion was carried with 10 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.
RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:
1. A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)
2. C07 Development in accordance with approved plans
3 CBK - During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times: Monday-Friday 7.00 am-6.00pm, Saturday 8.00 am-1.00 pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to comply with Policy SD1 of Herefordshire Local Plan – Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4 Within 3 months of completion of the works approved under this planning decision notice evidence (such as photos/signed Ecological Clerk of Works completion statement) of the suitably placed installation within the site boundary of at least one Bat roosting enhancements and two bird nesting boxes should be supplied to and acknowledged by the local authority; and shall be maintained hereafter as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. No external lighting should illuminate any habitat enhancement or boundary feature.
Reason: To ensure that all species are protected and habitats enhanced having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Habitat Regulations 2018, Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy Policy LD2, National Planning Policy Framework, NERC Act 2006 and Dark Skies Guidance Defra/NPPF 2013/2019
1. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date of next site inspection – 16 July 2019
Date of next meeting – 17 July 2019
The Committee noted the date of the next meeting.