Apologies were received from Councillor RI Matthews.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor GA Powell attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

8. DMS/112097/F - Dadnor Court, Dadnor, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 6QL.

Councillor G Lucas, Personal, Friend of the applicant.

9. DMN/112240/FH - Glen Helen, 1 Elmsdale Road, Ledbury, Herefordshire, HR8 2EG.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Personal, Business interest in the solar industry.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2011.

The Democratic Services Officer advised the Committee that Councillor LO Barnett had requested a minor amendment to the minutes in respect of agenda item 7 (minute number 62). She requested that specific reference be made to the fact that her comments were taken from the emails that she had received; that she understood that the committee were only decided on the conditions and that she was well aware of national and local policies on renewable energy.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendments detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

[Note: The resolution in respect of minute number 62 was omitted from the minutes published in the agenda dated 12 October 2011. The resolution agreed was as set out in the officer’s report and amended in the updates sheet circulated at the meeting. The amended minutes were resubmitted to the Committee for approval on 2 November 2011]

The Chairman advised the Committee that agenda item 11 would be considered after the live stock market application as the mayor, who was the local ward member for the application, had a prior engagement.

Application for approval of reserved matters following outline application DMS/103136/O for the redevelopment of the livestock market and adjacent land.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application before them related solely to reserved matters as the outline application had come before them in March 2011. It was noted that at the outline application stage the following matters had been agreed:

• Principle
• Floorspace thresholds
• Siting and height parameters
• Vehicular access and general highway alterations
• Traffic impact, retail impact and environmental impact.

He went on to advise Members that although the Council had made a commitment to deliver the ESG link road, the application was not dependent on it. He also drew members’ attention to an error in the report in respect of parking provision, he advised that the new provision was 617 spaces and not 517 as stated in paragraph 6.47 of the report.

In reference to questions raised at the Planning Committee Site Inspection, which had taken place on Tuesday 11 October, he commented that there was a perception of insufficient parking provision throughout the city, however this was not supported by the data collected by the Council. He also advised that there were new and proposed sustainable transport links and made reference to the recently approved Connect2 cycle way as well as the improved Holmer Road cycle ways. In response to a question regarding the re-use of materials on the site he commented that some of the building plaques were being re-used and that all of the hardcore arising from the demolition would also be crushed and re-used on site.

In response to a letter which had been received from Councillor MAF Hubbard, one of the local ward members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that legal advice had been sought in respect of a proposed condition regarding the restriction of the units around the entrance into the site from Widemarsh Street to retail use only. He confirmed that the advice given was that it would not be lawful to add such a condition at the reserved matters stage. He added that the committee had agreed to maximum floorspace restrictions for restaurant and café uses at outline stage and that as a result of this, it was likely that not all the units in this area could be food outlets in any event.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MAF Hubbard, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Impressed with the general scale, appearance, landscaping and street layout of the proposed development.
• Also pleased to see the inclusion of the small wooden framed pavilion buildings.
• Concerned that the views from Edgar Street were not being enhanced.
• Concerned with the level of integration to the city centre as required by the Council's Unitary Development Plan.
• The issue of usage of some of the units was a matter of layout and could therefore be considered at the reserved matters stage.
• Therefore it was proposed that units 27-29 and all three pavilion buildings be restricted to retail use only.
• Pedestrian integration was a key factor of the development and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Demolition of existing building and construction of 3 storey block of 6 apartments.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Barnacle and Ms Minton, two residents of Red Lion Court, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Beacon, the applicant's agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JD Woodward, also representing her fellow ward member Councillor SM Michael, commented on a number of issues, including:

• There was heavy vehicular use along Friar Street which contained 136 residential dwellings as well as a primary school and social clubs.
• The current dwelling was set back from the road and was considerably smaller than the proposed building.
• The proposed dwelling was 0.6 metres closer to the rear boundary and was considerably higher than the existing building.
• The traffic manager raised concerns at paragraph 4.2 of the report.
• The lack of any parking provisions and a footpath in front of the proposed dwelling was a concern for the local residents.
• Concerns were expressed in terms of the height, density and mass of the proposed development as well as the highway issues.
• The proposed application did not enhance the conservation area.
• There was no disabled parking allocated as part of the development.
• The application was therefore contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, DR2, DR3, H13, H16 and HBA6.

Members discussed the application and shared the concerns of the local ward members. They expressed concerns at the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the edge of the highway. They were also concerned that there was no parking provision included in the development and felt that this would have a detrimental effect to the amenity of the neighbouring residents on Friar Street. It was noted that there was no mention of renewable energy in the application and also that there was no communal open space.

Other Members, also speaking in objection to the application, had concerns in respect of the site with the general view being that the proposed application would result in an over intensification of the site. It was also felt that the proposed application did not enhance or preserve the conservation area.

Members were of the view that the application was contrary to Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies DR1, DR2, DR3, H13, H16, and HBA6.

A further information report was not requested from the Assistant Director - Economic, Environment & Cultural Services or the Locum Lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, and therefore the Committee proceeded to the vote.

RESOLVED

That the applications be refused for the following reasons:

In respect of DMS/111901/F:

1.         The proposed development by virtue of its siting, density, scale, mass, design and height would fail to promote or respect the character of the area and context of the site and would represent a cramped and over intensive form of development.  As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies DR1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Proposed change of use of agricultural land to a private ménage.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Senior 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.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         The ménage shall be used for the training of the applicant's own horses and shall at no time be used for any commercial training or other equestrian enterprise.

Reason: In order to safeguard the character and amenity of the area and to comply with Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         G02 Retention of trees and hedgerows

Informative:

1.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

Proposed installation of solar thermal panels on roof of existing garage together with bio-mass flue.

Approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Senior 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. He advised that the word 'not' had been omitted in the last sentence of paragraph 6.3 of the report.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         The external surface of the flue pipe, hereby approved, shall have a matt black finish unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the flue pipe is satisfactory in appearance and to comply with Policy DR1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.         CE2 Solar panels or other external renewable energy installations

Informative:

1.         N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

Proposed variation of condition 10 of planning permission DMS/102193/F – to allow unlimited access and flexible loading and unloading times.

Refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Reynolds, representing Burghill Parish Council and Mr Roberts, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ball, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The application came before committee in December 2010 and had caused the local residents some concern.
• Burghill Parish Council objected strongly to the application.
• The existing condition protected the amenity of the local residents and was in accordance with policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Council Unitary Development Plan.
• The translocation of the hedge had not been successful.
• The applicant was now requesting unlimited access to the site to feed goldfish and a cat, this seemed unreasonable.
• The speed of traffic along the road had increased and it was no longer safe for horse riding although it did not meet the criteria for a speed restriction.
• Applicant needed to work more closely with the local residents.

Members opened the debate by noting that the applicant needed to work more closely with the neighbouring residents. It was however considered that the proposed condition was reasonable and would address the concerns of the neighbouring residents.

However some members had concerns in respect of the enforcement of the existing conditions on the site and also raised the issue of highway safety as a concern. A number of members noted that they had visited the site in December 2010 and shared the concerns in respect of vehicular speeds along the highway.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that the enforcement issues referred to related to the applicant commencing work on the site prior to the discharge of conditions, he added that this was not uncommon. In response to other issues raised he advised that the hedge would have to be replanted and that although the application sought unrestricted access to the site the proposed condition kept some restrictions in place.

It was noted that the enforceability of the proposed condition regarding access to the site could be problematic and could cause issues between the applicant and the neighbouring residents. Some members were of the view that the proposed condition was not enforceable.

Another member of the Committee noted that the application was an agricultural usage and that there should be no restriction of access to the site. It was also noted that a farm on the site could result in more traffic movements than the existing use.

Councillor SJ Robertson was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated her opening remarks and made the following additional comment:

·         The original conditions were put in place to mitigate the concerns of the neighbouring residents.

·         The removal of the original conditions would be contrary to policies DR1 and DR2 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Date of next site inspection -  1 November 2011

Date of next meeting -            2 November 2011