To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Matthew Engel and Mark Woodall.

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

Councillor Dave Boutler acted as a substitute for Councillor Engel.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Boulter declared a personal interest in agenda item no, 6, application 231806, the applicant’s agent was a known associate.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2025.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2025 be approved.

Proposed siting of 12 no. holiday lodges for use as tourist accommodation on land within the established planning unit.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The senior planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Thomas, applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the application was at committee due to the number of significant local objections. Previously the site had been an outdoor activity centre as part of the PGL estate which provided breaks for young people. The activity centre had been open until 2019 and had been considered noisy and was accessed by larger vehicles such as coaches. There had been an expectation that the current application would generate similar levels of noise and traffic movements. However, it was likely that there would be a significant reduction in the level of noise and much smaller vehicles would be accessing the site. The proposed removal of the tower on the existing site would have a positive impact upon the landscape. It was considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact up on the landscape and it was noted that assessments of the application had determined that the requirements of the CROW act had been met. The site would include a number of environmentally sustainable measures and the proposed improvements to the access would benefit local highways. The addition of a condition requiring a noise management plan was supported. It was felt that the application complied with core strategy policies SS6 and SD1 and the local ward member was in agreement with the recommendation for approval.

The committee debated the application. There was division among the members of the committee regarding the acceptability of the application.

It was the contention of some members that the site would have an unacceptable impact upon the local landscape and it was noted that part of the screening at the site was deciduous which would only be effective when trees were in leaf. The proposal for 12 chalets on the site was an intensification of development and the scale and quantity on site was felt to be excessive. The application did not enhance or protect the national landscape and was felt to be contrary to national planning policy framework (NPPF) paragraph 89. A reduction in the number of chalets was encouraged to improve the impact of the site on the locality. The design of the chalets was not sympathetic to the surrounding area and was felt to be contrary to policy BAF4 of the Brampton Abbotts and Foy neighbourhood development plan (NDP). Due to the impact on the landscape the application was contrary to core strategy policy LD1 and it was not felt that the applicant had adequately addressed the issue of connectivity in order to satisfy core strategy policy E1.

It was the contention of other members that the application would encourage tourism into the county. It was felt that the new use of the site would have less  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Proposed development of 9 dwellings (6 x open market and 3 x affordable).

Application approved with a change to the conditions.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Colonel Forrest spoke on behalf of Eardisley Group Parish Council, Mr. Roberts, local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Price, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support,

In accordance with the council's constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the site was located within a scenic and sensitive location in Herefordshire. The planning history associated with the site was lengthy and reference was made to the application of April 2022 that was refused and dismissed on appeal. It was commented that very little had changed, in terms of the policy context and circumstances in Winforton, since that previous refusal except an increase in the density of housing proposed in the current application. There was a requirement for extra housing in the county but this should not be located in a village such as Winforton with no infrastructure to support new development. The density of housing proposed in the application was considered excessive and was not felt to be comparable to The Vineyards residential area, proximate to the application site. There was some support in the village for the provision of affordable housing however, the density of development on the proposed site was not acceptable. It was recognised that the site was suitable for development but not at the proposed density of housing.

The committee debated the application. There was frustration among members of the committee that house building targets imposed upon the county had undermined the core strategy and the council’s 5 year land housing supply. Without the required land housing supply in place the council was obligated to adopt a presumption in favour of such developments.

There was concern on the committee that the house proposed for construction on plot one was too close to the access road which undermined residential amenity. A distance of 3 metres, as a minimum, was required to protect residential amenity and a delegation to officers to agree a change to the plans was proposed.

The timing of the implementation of the landscaping scheme and the planting of hedgerow was raised by the committee. In order to mitigate the visual impact of the site on the landscape it was required that the landscaping scheme was undertaken at an earlier stage during construction and occupation of the site. Following clarification from the officers it was required that the landscaping scheme and planting of hedgerow was undertaken following occupation of the first unit on the development site.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained that there was not opposition from the local community to any development on the site but objections related to the density of the development proposed. The updated NPPF in December 2024 did not result in any changes to guidelines that affected the previous grounds for refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.