To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs. P.A. Andrews, A.C.R. Chappell, G.V. Hyde and A.L. Williams.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made during the meeting.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2nd June, 2004.

RESOLVED:  

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2nd June, 2004 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised the Sub-Committee that Mr. P.N. Evans was to leave his position as the Central Divisional Planning Officer for a position in Highways and Transportation.  The Chairman noted the staffing shortages in Planning and the need to remedy the situation.

To note the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the Central Area.

The Sub-Committee received an information report about planning appeals for the central area.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

Proposed house.

Proposed house.

In response to questions about parking issues, the Central Divisional Planning Officer reported that guidance suggested a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit with no minimum standard but in this instance the provision of two off-street parking spaces was recommended.  It was anticipated that this would help with access and egress and would provide a break between the built forms.

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.         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 amenity of local residents.

5.         E18 (No new windows in specified elevation) (north and west elevations).

            Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

6.         H01 (Single access - not footway).

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7.         H06 (Vehicular access construction).

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8.         H10 (Parking - single house).

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

9.         H27 (Parking for site operatives).

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

10.       E16 (Removal of permitted development rights).

            Reason: To enable the local planning authority to maintain control over extensions and alterations in the interests of residential amenity.

11.       G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

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

Informatives:

1.         HN01 - Mud on highway.

2.         HN04 - Private apparatus within highway.

3.         HN05 - Works within the highway.

4.         N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission.

A new secondary school (1 single and two 2-storey teaching blocks) with associated sports fields, hard courts, car parking and associated landscaping.

A new secondary school (1 single and two 2-storey teaching blocks) with associated sports fields, hard courts, car parking and associated landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer updated the Sub-Committee on transportation and access issues associated with the scheme.

The Local Ward Members noted the need for the new secondary school and the significant consultation process that had been undertaken.  Comments were made about the need to ensure that safe pedestrian access was provided on Three Elms Road.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site was being examined; including issues relating to public access to the relocated cricket facilities as part of planning application DCCW2004/0938/F (Land at Pentland Gardens, Kings Acre, Hereford) that was approved at the last meeting.

In response to some Members’ concerns, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the single point of access to the site was acceptable given the overriding security and safety issues associated with the school use.  He added that boundary treatments would need to be secure enough to prevent any potential short-cuts being used.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the scheme had been designed to accommodate bus/coach drop-off facilities.

A number of Members commented on the need to promote sustainable and safe modes of transport.

The Chairman suggested that recommendation include continued consultation with the Local Ward Members.

The Sub-Committee felt that the parties involved should be congratulated for their hard work on this application.

RESOLVED:

Subject to the receipt of further information and any required additional amended plans, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers, in consultation with the Local Ward Members, be authorised to approve this reserved matters application following any necessary reconsultation with conditions as considered necessary by Officers.

Proposed two storey detached dwelling with integral garage.

Proposed two storey detached dwelling with integral garage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Brimfield spoke in support of the application.

The Local Ward Member felt that the application should be supported as in her view there had been other infill developments elsewhere in the village, additional traffic would be minimal, the size of the proposed development could not be reduced further and given the personal circumstances of the applicants.  Some other Members also spoke in support of the application and felt that the neighbours concerns should be addressed if any planning permission was granted.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Sub-Committee that, whilst in theory representing an infill location, the proposed dwelling represented an unacceptable form of development which would appear cramped, out of scale and unsympathetic in this attractive rural area.  He added that, whilst Officers sympathised with the applicants’ situation, it had not been clearly demonstrated that there was a local need for the development.

A number of Members felt that the development would cause harm to the attractive character and appearance of the immediate locality.

A motion to approve the application failed and the Sub-Committee agreed the resolution detailed below.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed dwelling represents a revised scheme to a previous refusal of planning permission under reference CW2003/0421/F.  Notwithstanding the design alterations which reduce the overall size and height of the proposed unit, in accordance with adopted Policies SH10 and GD1 of the South Herefordshire District Local Plan, the proposed development is not acceptable.  By virtue of its siting, design and scale the dwelling would have a cramped and overbearing appearance which would result in an over development of the application site.  Furthermore, having regard to the site’s location close to the edge of the settlement of Shelwick the proposal would cause harm to the attractive rural character and appearance of the area.

Conversion of detached house into 4 no. self contained luxury apartments with garaging and parking.

Conversion of detached house into 4 no. self contained luxury apartments with garaging and parking.

The Central Divisional Planning Officer reported the receipt of correspondence from Mr. J. Walling expressing concerns about elements of the application.  He also reported the receipt of a letter from the applicant’s agent outlining waste disposal arrangements.

The Local Ward Member, whilst noting that property was not Listed nor lay within a Conservation Area, felt that the character of the building and the surrounding area should be preserved.  To limit disturbance to neighbouring properties, it was suggested that any planning permission should be conditioned appropriately to ensure that vehicles and materials were contained within the perimeter of the site during the works and to ensure that hours of working were restricted.

In response to comments by Members, the Central Divisional Planning Officer suggested that the applicant’s attention could be drawn, through an informative note, to the fact that any further sub-division or intensification of use of the property would require additional planning consents.

Some Members commented on the need to retain such classical Victorian properties.

In response to Members’ concerns, an additional condition to retain and protect trees during works was proposed.  It was noted that the external appearance of the building and the materials used would be controlled through a condition.

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          A07 (Development in accordance with approved plans)

            Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development.

3          Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the detail shown on the approved plan, a plan showing the allocation of car parking spaces for residents and visitors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  These spaces shall be demarcated in a method to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  These spaces shall be retained thereafter and kept available for those uses at all times.

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

4          The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a plan showing an area within the application site for the storage of refuse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The approved area for the storage of refuse shall then be used and retained thereafter free of any impediment to such use.

            Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the storage of refuse from the dwelling in the interests of amenities of nearby residents.

5          Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site.

            Reason: To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System.

6          No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system.

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Proposed redevelopment to incorporate 7 retail units and 14 residential units.

Proposed redevelopment to incorporate 7 retail units and 14 residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of a letter from the solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant which confirmed that the Hereford Bowling Club no longer had any rights to access the bowling green from the current car park.  The Principal Lawyer (Planning, Environment and Transport) stressed that the access issue did not constitute planning grounds to refuse.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Stringer spoke against the application.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the access to the bowling green was a sensitive issue but was not an issue which the Council could consider in determining this application; it was noted that Officers would give every possible assistance to the Bowling Club to identify alternative potential access arrangements.  He explained that the proposal complied with the Development Plan policy and outlined how the scheme could offer significant townscape enhancement and benefit to the Conservation Area.

Some Members expressed concerns about the architectural merit of the design and felt that this site was not an appropriate location for this design approach given the nature of the historic environment.

In response to questions on parking issues, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a car free development was considered acceptable having regard to all the services and amenities which were available associated with city centre living.  Whilst noting national planning policy, some Members maintained the view that car free developments were impracticable in Herefordshire given the lack of public transport infrastructure in the County.

Some Members felt it highly regrettable that existing access to the bowling green would be removed and concerns were expressed about the future viability of the Bowling Club. 

In order to promote alternative modes of transport, it was suggested that any planning permission granted should include the provision of one cycle per residential unit.

In response to concerns about the design approach, the Principal Planning Officer advised that detailed discussions had taken place with the Council’s former Chief Conservation Officer and English Heritage in terms of the modern form and detail of the proposed building and it was considered that the proposal addressed the sensitive townscape issues well in terms of form, scale and detail.  He reminded the Sub-Committee that the site was currently in use for car parking and detracted from the street scene.

In response to the view expressed by some Members that the materials should more in keeping with the area, the Principal Planning Officer advised the issue of materials had been considered carefully and it was felt that the high quality finish proposed would help to add visual interest to the street scene.

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as the Local Ward Member, expressed his sympathy for the Bowling Club’s predicament but noted that it was not an issue that the planning process could resolve on behalf of the Club.  He noted concerns regarding parking provision but reminded the Sub-Committee of national planning policy on this issue.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Change of use from laboratory facility to studios/classroom for educational purpose.

Change of use from laboratory facility to studios/classroom for educational purpose.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of a memorandum from the Council’s Economic Development unit in support of the application.  He also reported the receipt of details from the applicant’s agent about sustainable transport initiatives and in respect of a proposed contribution towards a residents’ parking scheme for Whitecross.  He added that, if Members were minded to support the application, a Section 106 agreement would be required to secure the delivery of such measures.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Heatly spoke in support of the application.

The Local Ward Members indicated their support for improvements in provision of educational facilities at the College of Art and Design but expressed concerns about insufficient on-site parking and the possible impact of overflow parking on the surrounding area.  Given that information had only recently been received about sustainable transport initiatives, it was suggested that consideration of the application be deferred.

A number of Members also expressed concerns about existing parking problems and congestion in this part of the city.  Some Members suggested that consideration should be given to a temporary planning permission subject to initiatives to mitigate the reduced parking provision. The Principal Planning Officer re-iterated the main transport considerations.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2004/1053/F be deferred.

The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday 28th July, 2004.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was Wednesday 28th July, 2004.