To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors H Davies, KS Guthrie, MD Lloyd-Hayes and GA Powell.

To receive any declarations of interest by members in respect of items on the agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
AP Taylor DB Wilcox	Minute 79, Agenda Item 5 [A] DCCE2007/2467/RM and [B] DCCE2007/2469/F Land at Venns Lane Royal National College For The Blind, College Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1EB	AP Taylor declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item. DB Wilcox declared a personal interest.
MAF Hubbard	Minute 80, Agenda Item 6 DCCE2007/2594/F Land to rear of Prospect Place, St. Martins Avenue, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR2 7RQ	Declared a personal interest.
SPA Daniels	Minute 84, Agenda Item 10 DCCW2007/2664/F Land adjacent Parsonage Farm, Auberrow Road, Wellington, Hereford, HR4 8AU	Declared a personal interest.
ACR Chappell	Minute 85, Agenda Item 11 DCCW2007/2834/F Land to the rear of Mulberry Close, Belmont, Hereford	Declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Mr. Withers, the Central Team Leader, declared personal interests in items 7 [DCCE2007/2817/F] and 8 [DCCE2007/2554/F].

To approve and sign the Minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of the last meeting were received.

 

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 26th September, 2007 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To note the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

The Sub-Committee received an information report about the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

[A]     The erection of 81 no. dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

[B]     Variation of condition 10 of planning permission DCCE2006/0099/O to allow the construction of 81 affordable and open market residential units.

[A]     The erection of 81 no. dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

[B]     Variation of condition 10 of planning permission DCCE2006/0099/O to allow the construction of 81 affordable and open market residential units.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

 

§         Amended plans had been received.  The main changes were highlighted.

 

§         Letters had been received in response to the amended plans from 4, 21, 23 and 25 Loder Drive.  The comments were summarised.

 

§         Comments had been received from the Traffic Manager in response to the amended plans and he had confirmed that the principal concerns had been addressed but minor revisions to the internal road layout were required.

 

The Principal Planning Officer commented that:

 

§         The amended plans addressed the principal concerns expressed by officers and consultees.  Minor revisions were still required to some of the house types, boundary treatments, garden areas and road layouts but, overall, the amended scheme was considered acceptable.

 

§         The recommendation had been altered in that:

a.      The requirement to demolish number 62 Venns Lane could be dealt with by condition rather than included within the Section 106 Agreemeent.

b.      The additional highway contribution was to be ring fenced for improvement to the Venns Lane/College Road/Old School Lane junction.

c.      The consultation period had not yet expired on the amended plans, therefore the recommendation remained that of delegated authority to determine the application subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period and any layout and design changes considered necessary by officers being accommodated.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Rayner spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Lawson spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, commented on the level of public interest in this application and reported that a number of meetings had been held involving the developer and local residents.  Councillor Wilcox noted that a Traffic Assessment had been undertaken in January 2006 as part of the outline stage and it did not take into account the development of 300 houses at Holmer and other extant planning permissions and recent development proposals.  The Area Engineer Development Control (Central) clarified the Traffic Assessment considerations.  In response to a question about outstanding highway layout and parking provision issues, the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the updated comments of the Traffic Manager. 

 

Councillor Wilcox emphasised his support for the Royal National College for the Blind and the importance of the College to the city and the county, particularly given its potential involvement with 2012 Paralympic Games.  It was noted that the Sub-Committee had, contrary to officer recommendation, approved the outline application for the development of 70 residential units in order to support the redevelopment of College facilities; this included a reduction in the affordable housing requirement from 35% to 17.5%.  It was also noted this application would increase the number of residential units to 81, representing a 16% increase on the approved proposal.  Councillor Wilcox  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Erection of six no. two bed maisonettes and four no. two bed flats with associated parking for fourteen cars.

Erection of six no. two bed maisonettes and four no. two bed flats with associated parking for fourteen cars.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

 

§         A further letter of objection had been received from Paul Smith and the comments were outlined.

 

§         Comments had been received from the project leader responsible for the flood defences confirming that, providing there was no significant reduction or raising of ground levels within the site, the development would have no impact on the design of the flood wall adjacent the site.

 

§         Comments had been received from the Council’s Archaeologist in response to the archaeological evaluation and were summarised.

 

§         Comments had been received from the Council’s Ecologist and were summarised.

 

§         Further comments had been received from the Traffic Manger advising that, without the existing consent to use the site as a car park, the application could not be supported due to the substandard access.  Based upon further information provided, the current use of the parking area was very low and therefore the proposed use would be a more intensive use of the site.  In light of the further information, the Traffic Manager’s recommendation was that of refusal.

 

§         A draft Section 106 Agreement had been received covering the Heads of Terms detailed in the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer commented that:

 

§         The plan in the agenda excluded a strip of land along the northern boundary of the site and this was clarified during the presentation.

 

§         In response to the Traffic Manager’s recommendation of refusal, it was acknowledged that the access was substandard but the existing permission was unrestricted and, therefore, the site could be used more intensively attracting a comparable flow of traffic and pedestrian activity to the proposed development.  Therefore, notwithstanding the Traffic Manager recommendation, in light of the lawful use of the site, the traffic impact was considered acceptable.

 

§         Comments were still awaited from the Environment Agency.

 

§         Additional conditions were recommended in order to prevent any development from commencing until the flood defences had been completed and certified as operational.  Further conditions were also recommended to address the ecological requirements.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Watkins spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Jamieson spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, commented on the poor visibility and narrowness of the access, the high level of vehicle and pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the site, and difficulties with traffic and congestion on adjoining roads.  Given these considerations, she felt unable to support the application.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about the potential for overlooking of existing properties and impact on the privacy of the occupants.  He commented on the vehicle, cycle and pedestrian movements associated with the Leisure Pool, Bishop’s Meadows and other nearby facilities.  In light of this, he felt that the intensification of the use of this substandard access would compromise highway safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Proposed erection of nine dwellings.

Proposed erection of nine dwellings.

 

Councillor WJ Walling, a Local Ward Member, noted the improvements made to the proposals following the withdrawal of two previous applications and felt that the objections had been largely overcome.  Therefore, he supported the application.

 

In response to a question from Councillor AP Taylor, also a Local Ward Member, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the position of the bus stop would be moved up Old Eign Hill towards the junction with Quarry Road.  Councillor Taylor expressed concern that there could be potential traffic conflicts associated with the new position of the bus stop.

 

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the Development Control Manager advised that officers were attempting to introduce carbon efficiency requirements for larger schemes but these were more difficult to negotiate on smaller developments; it was noted that proposed changes to Building Regulations should address the issue in the future.  He said that officers would discuss the issue with the applicant but it would not be a defendable reason for refusal at this time.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

 

3.      C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of [special] architectural or historical interest.

 

4.      E16 (Removal of permitted development rights).

 

         Reason: [Special Reason].

 

5.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

6.      W01 (Foul/surface water drainage).

 

         Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

 

7.      W02 (No surface water to connect to public system).

 

         Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

 

8.      W03 (No drainage run-off to public system).

 

         Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

 

9.      F48 (Details of slab levels).

 

         Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

 

10.    H03 (Visibility splays).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

11.    H06 (Vehicular access construction).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

12.    H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

 

13.    H17 (Junction improvement/off site works).

 

         Reason: To ensure the safe and free flow of traffic on the highway.

 

14.    H27 (Parking for site operatives).

 

         Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety.

 

15.    G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

 

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

 

16.    G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Replacement dwelling.

Replacement dwelling.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that:

 

§         A revised Ecological Survey in respect of the presence of the badger sett had been submitted and was currently the subject of further consultation; it was recommended that an artificial sett be constructed elsewhere on the site to mitigate the impact on the existing feature.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss Jones spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor AP Taylor, a Local Ward Member, commented that there would be minimal impact on surrounding properties and supported the recommendation.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That subject to no objection from the Councils Ecologist to the revised ecological survey, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.      A09 (Amended plans).

 

         Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans.

 

3.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

 

4.      C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of [special] architectural or historical interest.

 

5.      C05 (Details of external joinery finishes).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of [special] architectural or historical interest.

 

6.      C11 (Specification of guttering and downpipes).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of [special] architectural or historical interest.

 

7.      E16 (Removal of permitted development rights).

 

          Reason: [Special Reason].

 

8.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

9.      F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal).

 

         Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided.

 

10.    F48 (Details of slab levels).

 

         Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

 

11.    G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

 

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

 

12.    G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

13.    G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general)).

 

         Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

 

14.    H05 (Access gates).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

15.    H06 (Vehicular access construction).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

16.    H09 (Driveway gradient).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

17.    H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

 

18.    H27 (Parking for site operatives).

 

         Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      HN01 - Mud on highway.

 

2.      HN05 - Works within the highway.

 

3.      HN10 - No drainage to discharge to highway.

 

4.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Change of use to house of multiple occupancy.

Change of use to house of multiple occupancy.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms. Watkins spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor DJ Benjamin, a Local Ward Member, questioned the comment in the report that the ‘neighbouring properties were in multiple occupation’ and felt that there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity and character of the area.  He also felt that the proposal represented an over-intensive form of development and felt that the application should be refused.

 

Councillor JD Woodward, the other Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about the proposed internal layout and felt that it would not be unreasonable to expect a kitchen and bathroom on each floor.  She also felt that the conversion of the basement to habitable accommodation should be reconsidered.  The need and demand for this type of accommodation in this area was also questioned.

 

Councillor AT Oliver drew attention the objections of Hereford City Council and the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policy H17 (Subdivision of existing houses).  He felt that the proposal was over-intensive and the cumulative impact of the proliferation of HMOs in this area was detrimental to the character of the locality.

 

Councillor RI Matthews supported the views of the Local Ward Members.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox noted that there was demand for accommodation for single person households but felt that this should be in the form of self-contained flats rather than bed-sit type accommodation and felt unable to support this proposal.

 

In response to a question from Councillor SJ Robertson, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the means of fire escape was covered by separate legislation.  In respect of the standard of accommodation, the Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that the Head of Strategic Housing Services had not raised any objections and that the necessary requirements had been included in the scheme.

 

In response to a question from Councillor DW Greenow, the Development Control Manager advised that refusal of the application could be difficult to sustain given the other similar uses in the locality and noted that there might be merit in deferral for further negotiations to address the concerns raised by Members.

 

In response to a question from Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Development Control Manager advised that there were various regulations under the Housing Act that applied to HMOs but this was separate legislation and the Sub-Committee could only deal with the issue of the sub-division of the property.

 

Councillor AM Toon supported the deferral of the application and also asked that parking issues in the locality be explored further. 

 

Councillor PJ Edwards suggested that, although separate to this application, further investigations should be undertaken into the lawful use of adjacent properties given the concerns raised by Members.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That consideration of the application be deferred pending further negotiations with the applicant.

Proposed residential development of twelve houses.

Proposed residential development of twelve houses.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

 

§         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) had raised no objections to the revised plans.

 

§         Education had confirmed the need for improvements at Wellington and Aylestone schools.

 

§         A letter had been received from EB Smith raising no objection in principle but seeking confirmation that, if approved, conditions were attached controlling drainage matters.

 

§         An e-mail had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Davies confirming acceptance of the amended plans for plot 12 but commenting that they would wish to see the site level dropped similar to that of their property. 

 

§         A change to the recommendation was suggested to enable negotiations with the applicants over revisions to plot 12

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ballham spoke on behalf of Wellington Parish Council, Mr. Cook spoke in objection to the application and Mrs. Langford spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Local Ward Member, commented that Wellington was a vibrant and active rural community with a good demographic mix but there was an urgent need for accommodation for young families.  He acknowledged the concerns of Mr. Cook and other local residents and hoped that some of the issues could be addressed through negotiations with the applicant.  He felt that the re-development of the dairy unit was logical and would improve residential amenities.  Therefore, he supported the application.

 

Councillor RI Matthews supported the views of the Local Ward Member and anticipated that the £18,000 contribution towards off-site highway safety works (including signage) might address some of local residents’ concerns.  A number of other Members also spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the Chairman drew attention to paragraph 7 of the draft Heads of Terms which required energy efficiency measures to reduce the carbon footprint of the development.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on the need to prevent the over urbanisation of villages, particularly inappropriate street lighting.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)     That Officers secure appropriate revisions to the siting, orientation and setting out of Plot 12 as deemed necessary.

 

2)     The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a planning    obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report and incorporating any additional matters he considers appropriate.

 

3)      Upon completion of the aforementioned planning obligation that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

 

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.      A09 (Amended plans).

 

         Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans.

 

3.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

 

4.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

Reason: To protect the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

 

The Principal Planning Officer provided a detailed update, an outline is given below:

 

§         The Highways Agency had issued a holding response pending further information; in particular, further clarification was required regarding the impact on the capacity of the junction with the A465 and a Residential Travel Plan was being sought.

 

§         The Traffic Manager recommended standard conditions.  He confirmed that Mulberry Close was constructed to an acceptable standard as a means of access to the development, that the internal road layout allowed for appropriate access for refuse and emergency vehicles, that the parking levels were acceptable, that good cycle and pedestrian links were included, and that the proposed traffic calming in Haywood Lane would facilitate safe pedestrian access to the woodland.

 

§         The Conservation Manager (Landscape) considered that the general layout of the Country Park was acceptable subject to conditions and considered the housing layout to be well considered.  It was felt that improvements could be made to the bridge from Mulberry Close.  The comments of the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust had been assessed and he considered that the scheme represented the right approach to the provision of the Country Park subject to on going management.

 

§         The Parks and Countryside Manager had confirmed that the public rights of way would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.

 

§         The Forward Plans Manager had confirmed that the site did not meet the criteria for car-free development.  Furthermore, if appropriate provision for parking was not made, it was likely that problems with on street parking/obstruction would arise.

 

§         The Strategic Housing Officer had expressed concern that the tenure split of the affordable housing was 60% rented / 40% shared equity and not 75% / 25% as advised previously.  There were ongoing discussions with regard to the location of the affordable units and improvements to the frontages.

 

§         The Police Crime Risk Manager had emphasised the need for measures to create a safe and sustainable environment, clarification was sought on boundary treatments, and it was considered that the play area would not benefit from natural surveillance as it was situated away from the residential area.

 

§         The Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust welcomed the proposal but raised concerns regarding the layout of the Country Park and the method of analysis from which the project commenced.

 

·         Comments had been received from Belmont Rural Parish Council and objections included: the additional housing proposed would extend the developed area towards the pools, create additional traffic and reduce land available for Country Park use; Mulberry Close was considered unsuitable as a main access and would be detrimental to the peaceful rural environment enjoyed by the residents of this area; it was not considered that there was ‘spare capacity’ with regard to road use and it was suggested that the current speed restrictions along the Trunk Road be extended beyond Belmont Abbey; the applicant’s consultation process was not as described; there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

The next scheduled meeting will be held on 21st November, 2007.

21st November, 2007