Withington Group Parish Council
Extra Ordinary Meeting Held on Friday 11th February 2022
At 7.30pm in Withington Village Hall
M I N U T E S
Present: In the Chair: Kevin Hewison (KH); Jonathan Beech (JB); Howard Mansell (HM); John Bennett (DrJ); Bob Rudd (BR); Tom Nellist (TN); Alison Bainbridge (AB); Judith Howe (JH);
Also: Sophie Glover (Clerk), 18 members of public, 1 representative from TEKSS Gulya Isyanova.
The Meeting opened at 7.40pm
Time was allowed from 7.40pm for members of the public to raise any issues that they would like the Parish Council to consider (limited to no more than 3 minutes per person).
Those present were there to talk about specific planning applications, and the chair agreed to let them talk prior to each application.
1. To accept Apologies for absence – Julie Williams (JW); Barclay Rogers (BR); Anna Green (AG); Bob Wood (BW); Paul Hudd (PH); Sue Rudd (SR); Simon Dent (SD); Ingrid Heatly (IH); Paul Andrews (Ward Cllr);
2. To receive Declaration of Interests.
None received
3. Planning –
To consider comments on applications to be determined by Herefordshire Council as listed below or on the Herefordshire Council Planning website prior to the meeting:-
214619: TEKSS Solar farm, Westhide.
Comments from the public: This will be a commercial venture to make the 10th biggest solar farm in the country. In order to service the farm, a cable will need to be laid to Dormington, crossing two main roads and acres of farm land.
40% of the land is grade 1 and 2 farmland. The proposed solar farm is out of scale with the area.
The representative from TEKSS explained that they have talked with a large number of land owners to avoid having to dig up too many roads.
Another parishioner voiced the concern that the UK should be looking after the grade 1 and 2 farmland to produce food for our own country’s consumption.
A further parishioner mentioned that the farm would cover more than 10% of Westhide parish. The cable’s route should be clearly labelled prior to planning being considered.
The chair told the meeting that TEKSS had suggested that there could be a community fund to run over 10 years from when the project starts. The PC said that in other areas these agreements should last for however long the project lasts for, it needs to be written in to the planning application and centred on Westhide.
The topography of the area does not lend itself to this kind of development, turning the countryside into an industrial estate.
There are great crested newts on the site – to which TEKSS said that they would put in a corridor for safe passage of the newts.
These panels contain precious metals – where do these come from? They only have a limited shelf life, so what happens when they die? Who is responsible for the tidy up? Do they get buried?
TEKSS: there is usually a decommissioning scheme that is written into the project to ensure that as much as possible is recycled at the ‘end’ of the scheme.
Noise has been bought up as a possible problem to a site such as this. The support paperwork indicates that TEKSS will build it to be with in a set range of limited noise.
The PC suggested that there should be no movements of machinery through the village of Withington in the construction of the site.
TEKSS openly admit that this is the first solar farm that they have constructed, individuals in the company have been involved in the production of other farms. They also admit that they may well sell on the farm shortly after it is built – meaning that the farm could have a number of owners prior to their decommissioning.
It was suggested that it would allay peoples fears if there was an overarching body that would ensure that the farm was managed from start to decomissioning.
The development goes completely against the NDP and against the Core Strategy. It is too big.
Landscaping has been raised as an issue: whilst TEKSS say that they will be putting in hedging plants, what is the ongoing maintenance of these planting/landscaping projects. TEKSS representative said that there will be an ongoing maintenance plan put in place.
A proposed response to this planning application had been circulated to cllrs prior to the meeting, the Chair read this out: (attached to the end of this document).
He asked if the Cllrs were happy for the clerk to submit this as it stood (in addition to the supplementary point that DrJ raised – Proposed from the chair and seconded by AB all were in favour.
214601: Ivy Dene Cottage, Dodmarsh, Westhide: Shepherds hut to be utilised as holiday let.
Retrospective.
One Cllr voiced concern is that it is visible from the road, although it was agreed that this will be less visible in the summer when the hedge fills out.
Proposed PC supports this application, comment: As a one off placement this hut has the support of WGPC. Proposed: Chair Seconded: AB All were in favour.
214637: Land adjoining Vine Tree Close, Withington. Proposed erection of one bungalow, access etc.
Public Comments: One resident from Vine Tree pointed out that when the most recent development was originally submitted, for 45 houses it was turned down on the numbers involved, only allowing 31 in the end, so to now add more bungalows to this site goes completely against the original agreement. It is also on the ridgeline, so will be very visible from all over the village.
The PC had prepared an initial response paper against this application which had been circulated prior to the meeting (attached to these minutes). To agree and then submit this proposal was moved by: the chair Seconded: TN All were in favour.
220008: Land at Aistone Cottage, Preston Wynne. Proposed conversion of existing barn to separate dwelling unit.
PC Comment: It was thought that the conversion was very unobtrusive. The PC was moved to support this application, Proposed from the Chair SEconded : BR All were in favour.
220335: Hill top, Shucknall Hill: Proposed double Garage.
WGPC has no comment.
Action: clerk to submit all of the above the comments.
4. Financial:
a. Balances
Public Sector Deposit Fund (31.12.21) £14,103.37
Lloyds Parish Acct (05.01.22) £ 11,253.15
Lloyds Withington Field Acct (31.12.21) £ 4,811.52 £30,186.0
b. Cheques to be paid
Parish Acct:-
Clerks Salary £395.72
Clerks Expenses £ 25.12 £ 420.84
PAYE £ 8.20
Townsend Property Maintenance (notice board) £ 144.00
£ 573.04
Withington Field Acct:-
Shelly O’Sullivan (litter collection) £ 80.00
Wicksteed (vat on invoice 816525) £ 11.60
TerryGriffiths Inv 1771 £ 150.00
Inv 1787 Covid spraying £ 150.00
Inv 1786 H&S checks £ 48.00 £ 348.00
£ 439.60
Total cheques: £1,012.64
It was moved that all cheques should be paid.
Proposed: Chair Seconded:TN All cllrs were in favour of making the payments.
Authorisation of Lengthsman work in Preston Wynne: Still awaiting quote for this work.
5. Update on any Parish issues: mud on Veldo Lane – parishioner had submitted photos of the damage to the lane. Mud has been reported to the enforcement officer. Get lengthsman to put up post and mount the dog poo bin on it.
6. Receive items for the next agenda (no discussion) Community speed watch info was circulated to all cllrs.
7. Agreed time and date of next meeting: 24th March 2022 starting at 7.30pm.
The meeting closed at 8.58pm
Signed: _________________________ Date: _________________
Dates for 2022 meetings:
24th March 7.30 pm start
Annual Meeting 19th May 7.00 pm start
14th July 7.30 pm start
22nd September 7.30 pm start
17th November 7.30 pm start
Appendix:
WGPC Comments on the following planning applications –
TEKSS Solar Farm Application No 214619
The WGPC objects to this application as it conflicts with the WGPC Neighbourhood Plan – NDP policy P.13 and the Herefordshire Core Strategy PSD2 – 2, 3, and 4.
However, there are improvements/amendments which could be made to overcome this objection.
1. The reduction of the site by the omission of fields A,D,E,I and H, these being of the highest agricultural land quality (mainly grade 1 and 2.)
2. Submission of details of the connection to the national grid or ensure all placed underground.
3. Details of the inverters and updated acoustic report.
4. A legal agreement relating to landscape retention (woodland) being maintained by third parties, including Westhide Estates.
5. A legal agreement requiring traffic routing.
6. Requirement of construction and vehicular movements to be restricted to Mondays to Friday 8am to 6pm. (No construction or activity during construction on weekends and bank holidays)
Without these further changes and details the WGPC retains its objection for the following reasons.
1. The scheme covers a substantial area of the countryside and in association with the nearby Ocle Pychard strawberry ‘farm’ polytunnels will have a profound visual impact.
2. There are no proposals for the transmission of the generated power to the national grid either by underground or overhead cables.
3. The scheme is very large affecting the residential and visual amenity, with no direct community benefit.
4. The site curves around the northern edge of Westhide and the submitted drawings fail to clearly illustrate the relation of the site to the dwellings. The majority the houses in Westhide will have a view of panels in addition for some also seeing the Ocle Pychard polytunnels. Both these are alien features in a ‘green’ countryside.
5. The site is made up of 40% good – very good agricultural land. The best and most productive land should be preserved for agricultural production.
6. During the construction stage there will be considerable noise generated by the use of pile drivers to insert metal supports.
7. Whilst the acoustic report indicates that background noise levels from the equipment (inverters) will be relatively low there is concern that this statement is not yet substantiated since no specific equipment has been proposed. The consultants indicate that additional baffles or specific low noise inverters have been assumed. (The submitted plans only show an empty box design.)
8. The routing of construction traffic to and from the A465 and along the C1130, with no vehicular movements through Withington (with the sole exception for the transformer) is offered, but there is concern over the enforceability. It will also be necessary to ensure that existing traffic operating from the Thinghill Court farm site is not diverted through Withington.
Should the Planning Authority be minded to approve the application the WGPC would ask for.
1. Full details of the proposed invertors and noise assessment to be submitted and approved before development commences
2. Specific landscaping conditions relating to the retention of existing trees, the size of new trees, and the replacement of trees lost throughout the lifetime of the project. Any new tree screen planting to be undertaken the season before construction of the panels commences.
3. Construction traffic only to use the A465 and C1130 up to the proposed entrance at Thinghill Court, with specific proposals to ensure the safe continued use of the public right of way/bridleway WT23.
4. A further condition to ensure existing traffic generated by the farm complex is not diverted through Withington
5. A section 106 agreement, or similar legal agreement, detailing any offered/proposed community benefits. (It is unclear as to whether the Planning Authority has a standard community benefit policy regarding contributions from green energy providers – noting that other authorities have policies detailing fixed benefits, including financial contributions.)
Vine Tree Close – Application No. 214637
The WGPC objects to the application for the following reasons.
1. The application site extends well beyond the settlement boundary contrary to Policy P2 of the NDP.
2. The settlement boundary as defined on the Village Policy map was proposed specifically to follow the boundary of the approved outline planning application (150067) granted on appeal. The scale of the plan, where the settlement boundary line is relatively thick, cannot be an exact representation of the boundary. It clearly states in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.13 that the original settlement boundary was extended to incorporate the areas granted planning permission prior to the plan being adopted. It was also stressed at the appeal that only 31 dwellings would be built, following the refusal of 45 dwellings. Indeed the ‘drawn settlement boundary’ goes through number 55 Vine Tree Close and through the middle of the proposed plot, joining Veldo Lane halfway between the boundary of the original Vine Tree Development and the edge of the copse. It is therefore outside the assumed settlement boundary, and any decision should be based on the proposal being located in ‘open countryside’ and covered by Policy RA3 in the Core Strategy. The proposal meets none of the criteria required for development to be acceptable in the open countryside.
3. Even as submitted, the plans include a substantial area of garden outside the applicants assumed settlement boundary incorporating a new package treatment plant. The site boundary also extends westwards through the field and coppice to the adjoining field.
4. The details of the dwelling, in order for it to fit in the applicant’s assumption of the settlement boundary, result in the rear of the bungalow facing Veldo Lane in contrast with the main estate layout where the dwellings all face Veldo Lane. This enabled all the paraphernalia normally associated with rear gardens – washing lines, garden shed, greenhouses etc – not to intrude on the countryside setting of Veldo Lane, nor on the ridge line when viewed from a distance. Indeed the application already includes a cycle storage shed projecting beyond the building line created by the existing development.
5. In the applicant’s appeal submission in respect of 150067 the following assessment of the character of the area was noted, clearly identifying the northern edge of the field being excluded from development and just bungalows in the north east corner
‘8.50 The submitted LVIA* concludes the following: the local landscape character has been identified by the Council as the ‘Principal Settled Farmlands’ character area typically domestic in character with a matrix of hedgerow fields. There is scope for the appeal proposal to reinforce natural features of the local landscape notably reinforcement of existing and planting of new boundary hedges and trees. Despite its size and relative elevation, the great majority of the field within which the appeal site lies, comprises a discrete, introverted component of the local landscape. This is due to the high degree of its visual containment by the adjoining housing, wood and site topography; As a result of this high degree of visual containment, the only segment of the field appeal site exposed visually to the wider landscape is its northernmost sections and; By virtue of the exclusion of development of the northern most segments of field, the restriction of development to bungalows in the north-east site sector, the restricted public views of the site and the mitigation measures of bolstering and planting hedges and trees along the northern site boundaries the visual and landscape effects of the proposal would be mitigated and within acceptable levels. *‘ (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment))
6. The submission for 150067 clearly acknowledges the need to reduce the impact of the development on the ridge line and the character of the countryside and Veldo Lane in particular, which the current proposal will clearly undermine.