To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs. P.A. Andrews, Mrs. E.M. Bew, A.C.R. Chappell, D.J. Fleet, Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, J.W. Newman, Ms. A.M. Toon and A.L. Williams.

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

The following declarations of interests were made:

 

Councillors	Item	Interest
Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels, Mrs. S.J. Robertson and D.B. Wilcox	Agenda Item 5, Minute 57 DCCE2005/2321/F 4 Carter Grove, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1NT	Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels and D.B. Wilcox declared personal interests. Mrs. S.J. Robertson declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.
D.B. Wilcox	Agenda Item 7, Minute 59 DCCW2004/0394/M Part of O.S. Parcel 2980, Upper Lyde Gravel Pit, Upper Lyde, Herefordshire	Declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.
D.B. Wilcox	Agenda Item 8, Minute 60 DCCW2004/0393/F Moreton Road, Upper Lyde, Hereford	Declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.
J.C. Mayson	Agenda Item 10, Minute 62 [A] DCCW2005/1242/M and [B] DCCW2005/1243/M Wellington and Moreton-on-Lugg Quarries	Declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.
D.B. Wilcox	Agenda Item 13, Minute 65 SH950300PF Woodlands Farm, Watery Lane, Dinedor, Hereford	Declared a personal interest.

 

Mr. K. Bishop, Principal Planning Officer, declared a personal interest in respect of Agenda Item 11, Minute 63 (DCCW2005/2394/F) and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 25th August, 2005.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the last meeting held on 24th August, 2005 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 in respect of the planning appeals for the central area.

 

RESOLVED:            That the report be noted.

First floor extension to existing dwelling.

First floor extension to existing dwelling.

 

In response to a question about the impact of the proposal on a protected Scots Pine, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the works would not obstruct the roots of the tree and that the Council’s Arboriculturalist had not raised any objections to the scheme.  He also drew attention to recommended conditions 6, 7 and 8.

 

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.      A06 (Development in accordance with approved plans).

 

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

 

3.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

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

 

4.      Prior to the commencement of development full specifications of the proposed screening measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Prior to the occupation of the development hereby authorised the agreed screening measures shall be installed and retained in perpetuity.

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

5.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

6.      G16 (Protection of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order).

 

         Reason: To ensure the proper care and maintenance of the trees.

 

7.      G17 (Protection of trees in a Conservation Area).

 

         Reason: To ensure the proper care and maintenance of the trees.

 

8.      G18 (Protection of trees).

 

         Reason: To ensure adequate protection to existing trees which are to be retained, in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

 

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

Erection of two dwellings.

Erection of two dwellings.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a fatal accident had occurred in 2002 in the vicinity of the junction of the access road with the A438 and that measures had been subsequently taken to improve highway safety; including a 40mph speed limit, slip resistant surface treatment and signs warning of queuing traffic.  He added that the Transportation Manager had raised no objections to the proposal.

 

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

 

Councillor R.I. Matthews, the Local Ward Member, noted the comments of Stretton Sugwas Parish Council and expressed his concerns about the accident record at this junction and the impact of the dwelling on the character of the rural area.  It was noted that, in the Appeal Decision relating to a previous application and attached to the report, the Inspector had concluded that the development of only one unit was acceptable but Councillor Matthews felt that two dwellings would have dramatic effect on the rural setting.  Therefore, he proposed that the application be refused.

 

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Inspector considered the application site to be within the designated settlement and that the character of the plot related well to the remainder of the settlement.  He noted local concerns about highway safety but reiterated that improvements had been made.

 

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member’s views and felt that the proposal would result in a feeling of urbanisation and would not provide a natural transition between the settlement and the countryside.

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted sites where other applications had been refused and advised that he could not confirm whether the Inspector was aware of the entire accident history but he could confirm that the Inspector had visited the site and would have been aware of the characteristics of the area.

 

The Development Control Manager drew attention to the fact that the Inspector (at paragraph 8 of the Appeal Decision) did not consider that the previous proposal would conflict with policy ‘in that it would not adversely affect the character of the location or encourage undesirable further development to take place having regard to the particular circumstances of the site’.  He noted Members’ concerns about the junction but stressed that the Transportation Manager was satisfied with the proposal.  The Central Team Leader added that it was important to maintain consistency and that the Inspector had effectively discounted a number of potential reasons for refusal.

 

Councillor Matthews maintained his view that the application should be refused and a number of Members supported this motion.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

 

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Variation of conditions 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26 & 27 on pp ref CW2001/0769/M - for the extraction of sand and gravel.

Variation of conditions 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26 & 27 on pp ref CW2001/0769/M - for the extraction of sand and gravel.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. F. Bradley spoke on behalf of Lyde Parish Council and Mr. A.W.C. Morris spoke against the application.

 

In response to comments made by the speakers, the Team Leader (Minerals and Waste) advised that the basic principle regarding this site was that planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel existed by virtue of the original (1965) planning permission.  The application sought to vary a number of conditions that had been placed on the planning permission when it was ‘modernised’ in 2001, specifically in relation to the reclamation of the site.  He noted local residents’ concerns about ground water but emphasised that, after a significant exchange of correspondence with the Council and the applicant’s agent and the consultant, the Environment Agency had no objection to the proposed variation of conditions subject to conditions.  He added that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the consultant’s report.  Therefore, whilst there could be no absolute guarantee, the proposal was unlikely to have an impact on ground water.  The Team Leader also noted concerns about the stability of the sides of the excavation but commented that the steep sides were very stable and there was no evidence that there would be any impact from slippage.  He also clarified matters relating to the proposed excavation boundary.

 

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, felt that Herefordshire’s countryside was being eroded by quarry activity and other landscape blight.  She noted that there was an over provision of gravel and the need for reduced waste in the construction industry.  She felt that the Sub-Committee had imposed reasonable conditions in 2001 which would ensure that the impact of the development on the area and on local communities was mitigated.  She expressed concern that, even with boundary fencing, the proposed pond would be attractive to children and accidents might occur as a result.  Local concerns about human rights matters were mentioned.  Councillor Mrs. Robertson noted that no guarantees could be given that water supplies would not be affected and felt that this potential risk should be avoided.  Given these considerations, she proposed that the application be refused and the site returned to original levels.

 

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member and expressed their reluctance to vary the conditions, issues discussed included: perceived discrepancies in the information provided; concerns about the potential hazards of a large excavation; fatal accidents in quarry ponds; conditions that had not been adhered to; and the need for adequate boundary fencing and planting.

 

In response to a question, the Team Leader outlined some potential scenarios if planning permission was refused and the terms of the original planning permission were not adhered to.  The Team Leader also commented that the boundary fence was of a higher quality that the Health and Safety Executive required and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Variation of condition 6 on CW2001/1427/F - Widening of carriageway and construction of 6 passing bays.

Variation of condition 6 on CW2001/1427/F - widening of carriageway and construction of 6 passing bays.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. F. Bradley spoke on behalf of Lyde Parish Council and Mr. A.W.C. Morris spoke against the application.

 

The Team Leader (Minerals and Waste) advised that the application sought to vary a condition which required existing sections of hedge to be translocated and instead plant new sections of hedge.  He emphasised that the Conservation Manager had no objection to the proposal and recognised that translocation was unlikely to succeed given the thinness of the soil on site.

 

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, noted the concerns of local residents and felt that the ecological and landscape value of this important hedgerow should not be lost.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

 

1.  Loss of biodiversity.

 

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

 

[Note:            Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]

[A] Construction of 16 no. residential units, associated carparking and landscaping and [B] Demolition of Carfax House and associated buildings, replacement residential dwellings.

[A] Construction of 16 no. residential units, associated carparking and landscapingand [B] Demolition of Carfax House and associated buildings, replacement residential dwellings.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter of objection from Mrs. A. Cook and an additional letter of support from the applicant’s agent.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. A. Cook spoke against the applications and Mr. D. Benbow (applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the applications.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, noted the need to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and expressed a number of concerns about the proposals.  He commented that the existing use of Carfax House for educational purposes, in association with the Hereford College of Technology, meant that there was minimal pedestrian traffic across Aylestone Hill and that this would increase significantly with the proposed residential use of the site.  Therefore, Councillor Wilcox felt that the planning contribution requested by the Traffic Manager of £1500 per unit towards the provision of a pedestrian crossing should be insisted upon.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the development represented an improvement of the existing on site situation through access enhancements and no intensification of vehicle movements.  Therefore, a contribution would be desirable but could not be reasonably insisted upon.  However, the developer had nevertheless volunteered a contribution of £500 per unit towards highway improvements.  The Senior Planning Officer also explained the design approach of the proposals.

 

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member, issues discussed included: highway safety and the need to secure additional improvements; the importance of this site given its location on a prominent entranceway to the City; the need to preserve some of the interior features of the existing building; the architectural and historic value of the existing building; and the lack of affordable housing.  Some Members felt that the proposed design approach was unsightly and would not enhance this landmark site.

 

In response to the concerns of Members, the Development Control Manager clarified the highway issues and the approach taken towards contributions (with reference to Circular 05/2005 – Planning obligations) and noted the Conservation Area requirements (with reference to PPG15 – Planning and the historic environment).

 

Councillor Wilcox felt that the existing amount of on site parking had been overestimated given that some the parking areas were unauthorised, that the proposed new access arrangements would improve highway safety but the implications of increased pedestrian footfall had not been addressed, and he remained unconvinced about the proposed design of the development.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the applications, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

 

1.  Visual impact; and

2.  Fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

[A] Variation of condition nos. 3, 6, 11, 15, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30 of planning permission H&WCC ref. 407393 (SH960682JZ) (Wellington) to merge operations and [B] Variation of condition nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of planning permission ref. CW2002/3058/M (Moreton-On-Lugg) To Merge Operations.

[A] Variation of condition nos. 3, 6, 11, 15, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30 of planning permission H&WCC ref. 407393 (SH960682JZ) (Wellington) to merge operations and [B] Variation of condition nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of planning permission ref. CW2002/3058/M (Moreton-on-Lugg) to merge operations.

 

The Team Leader (Minerals and Waste) reported that the Environment Agency had not raised any objections to the applications.

 

Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie noted that Wellington Parish Council and Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council were reasonably satisfied with the proposed merge of operations and he explained the recent history of the sites.  He also noted that Marden Parish Council had significant concerns about the impact of traffic from the quarries on the village and on the local road network.  Therefore, Councillor Guthrie proposed an additional condition to require a transportation scheme to ensure that the lorries were properly routed to and from the A49 and were not permitted to go through Marden.  The Sub-Committee supported this proposal.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)            The County Secretary and Solicitor be authorised to complete a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to revoke the S106 Agreement made under reference SH960682JZ (H&WCC ref. 407393) on 24th April 1997 and amend the S106 Agreement made under ref. CW2002/3058/M on 13th January 2004) and

 

2)      Upon completion of the aforementioned Planning Obligation that the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission for applications DCCW2005/1242/M and DCCW2005/1243/M subject to the following conditions:

 

In respect of DCCW2005/1242/M (Wellington Gravel Pit):

 

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.  No soil shall be moved on site unless and until written notice of commencement has been sent to the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in order to define the commencement of the development.

 

2.      This permission shall be implemented only in lieu of, and not in addition to, the planning permission SH960682JZ (Hereford and Worcester County Council reference 407393) dated 24th April 1997.

 

         Reason: To prevent over development of the site and to protect the interests of the River Lugg SSSI, cSAC.

 

3.      The site referred to in this permission is that shown edged red on plan W17/PL1/3 received by Hereford and Worcester County Council on 5th June 1996, included within this site is the sand and gravel working existing at that time and two extension areas referred to as the Proposed Northern Extension Area and the Proposed Southern Extension Area.

 

         Reason: To define the permitted area in the interest of clarification and to protect the amenity of local residents and the scientific and nature conservation interests of the River Lugg SSSI, cSAC.

 

4.      The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. W107/03, W107/04, W107/05), except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Temporary use of vacant hotel car park for storage of plant and materials in connection with Eign Gate refurbishment (retrospective) current forecast date of return to existing use November 05.

Temporary use of vacant hotel car park for storage of plant and materials in connection with Eign Gate refurbishment (retrospective) current forecast date of return to existing use November 05.

 

Councillor Miss F. Short, a Local Ward Member, noted local residents’ concerns and proposed an additional condition in respect of site security.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That temporary 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.      E20 (Temporary permission).

 

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to give further consideration of the acceptability of the proposed use after the temporary period has expired.

 

3.      E10 (Use restricted to that specified in application).

 

         Reason: To suspend the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order currently in force, in order to safeguard residential amenity.

 

4.      E01 (Restriction on hours of working).

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

5.      F25 (Bunding facilities for oils/fuels/chemicals).

 

         Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

 

6.      F40 (No burning of material/substances).

 

         Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and prevent pollution.

 

7.      During the construction phase, the applicant shall ensure that the public highway is kept clear of mud and other debris in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority, within one month of the date of this permission.

 

         Reason: To protect the environment and amenities of nearby properties.

 

8.      G16 (Protection of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order).

 

         Reason: To ensure the proper care and maintenance of the trees.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      HN01 - Mud on highway.

 

2.      HN04 - Private apparatus within highway.

 

3.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP.

First floor extension to side of property.

First floor extension to side of property.

 

 

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.      B03 (Matching external materials (general)).

 

         Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

 

4.      E09 (No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation).

 

         Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights

 

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

Erection of two proposed dwellings with adjoining garages.

Erection of two proposed dwellings with adjoining garages.

 

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, noted that the applicant had requested that consideration of this application be deferred and felt that this was an appropriate course of action.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Tannant-Nash had registered to speak on behalf of the applicant but deferred his right to speak until the next meeting.

 

RESOLVED:  

 

That consideration of the application be deferred.

[A] and [B] Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 6 flats.

[A] and [B] Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 6 flats.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter of objection from Mrs. J.A. Pritchard.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. J.A. Pritchard spoke against the applications.

 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

DCCE2005/2079/F:

 

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.      The applicants or their agents or successors in title shall ensure that a professional archaeological contractor undertakes an archaeological watching brief during any development to the current archaeological standards of, and to the satisfaction of, the local planning authority.

         Reason: To ensure that the archaeological interest of the site is investigated.

 

6.      E18 (No new windows in specified elevation).

 

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

 

7.      E19 (Obscure glazing to windows).

 

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

 

8.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

9.      G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

 

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

 

10.    H29 (Secure cycle parking provision).

 

         Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy.

 

11.    During the construction phase, no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at, or despatched from the site outside the following times:

 

Monday to Friday    7.00 am – 6.00pm

Saturday    8.00am – 1.00pm

 

         Nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N01 - Access for all.

 

2.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

 

3.      N07 - Housing Standards.

 

4.      HN01 - Mud on highway.

 

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

 

DCCE2005/2085/C:

 

1.      CO1 – Time limit for commencement (Listed Building Consent)

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed be Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

 

2.      The applicants or their agents or successors in title shall ensure that a professional archaeological contractor undertakes an archaeological watching brief during any development to the current archaeological standards of, and to the satisfaction of, the local planning authority.

 

         Reason: To ensure that the archaeological interest of the site is investigated.

 

Informatives:

 

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

Variation of condition 2 & 3 (hours of working/loading/unloading) to extend operating time to 7.30am of planning application CW/2005/0207/F and allow employee arrival from 7.00am.

Variation of condition 2 & 3 (hours of working/loading/unloading) to extend operating time to 7.30am of planning application CW/2005/0207/F and allow employee arrival from 7.00am.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported additional correspondence from Holmer Parish Council, Holmer Court Residential Care Home, 4 Belfry Close and 1 Holmer Court.

 

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, noted the importance of controlling activity on the site given the close proximity of a residential care home.  Councillor Mrs. Robertson suggested that local concerns could be best addressed through a joint meeting between residents, Officers and herself to identify some practical solutions to the difficulties being experienced.

 

Councillor R.I. Matthews commented that, whilst he had every sympathy for the views of the Local Ward Member, the Authority would have difficulty in defending refusal of planning permission in this instance as a number of other businesses on the site had longer operating times.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Sub-Committee that this application related to operating hours only.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      The permission hereby granted is an amendment to planning permission DCCW2005/0207/F and, otherwise than is expressly altered by this permission, the conditions attached thereto remain.

 

         Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

 

2.      The hours during which working may take place shall be restricted to 7.30am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays.  There shall be no such working on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

3.      The loading and unloading of service and delivery vehicles together with their arrival and departure from this site shall not take place outside the hours of 7.30am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

4.   Employees shall not enter or leave the site, other than for emergency access, more than 15 minutes before the permitted commencement hours of operation. No working, loading or unloading or any associated activities shall take place outside the restrictions confirmed in Conditions 2 and 3.

 

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

 

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

Proposed new dwelling with garage.

Proposed new dwelling with garage.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the planning history of the application site.

 

Councillor R.M. Wilson, the Local Ward Member, noted the need to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.

 

RESOLVED:  

 

That consideration of this application be deferred for a site inspection on the following grounds:

• the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Removal of condition 3 of planning permission CE2000/0855/F.

Removal of condition 3 of planning permission CE2000/0855/F.

 

The Legal Practice Manager confirmed that the Regulatory Sub-Committee had recently granted the applicant a license to open for longer and, therefore, it would be inconsistent if planning permission was refused.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to negotiate the possibility of a financial contribution towards the operation of CCTV in the locality of the application site and if agreement is reached:

 

The County Secretary and Solicitor be authorised to complete a planning obligation/unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

 

Upon completion of the planning obligation the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission.

Proposed conversion of single dwelling into two separate dwellings.

Proposed conversion of single dwelling into two separate dwellings.

 

 

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.      The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. 118.01, 118.02, 118.03, 118.04, 118.20, 118.21, 118.22 and 118.23) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

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

 

3.      B04 (Matching brickwork).

 

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

 

Informatives:

 

1.      N14 - Party Wall Act 1996.

 

2.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP.

Ground floor alterations with first floor extension over.

Ground floor alterations with first floor extension over.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of correspondence from the applicant’s agent regarding roof light details.

 

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

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, noted the concerns of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, particularly the potential loss of light and privacy and the overbearing impact that could result from the development. 

 

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure that the new windows were obscured, non-opening or escape only.  He added that the impact on the neighbouring dwelling might not compromise habitability significantly given the layout of the building.

 

Councillor W.J. Walling felt that the loss of privacy and overbearing impact associated with this proposal was unacceptable and proposed that the application be refused.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reason for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

 

1.  Overbearing impact on the adjoining dwelling.

 

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

 

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]

The next scheduled meeting is 19th October, 2005.

It was noted that the next meeting would be held on 19th October, 2005.