To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs. E.A. Taylor, D.B. Wilcox and A.L. Williams.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 28th June, 2006.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28th June, 2006 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 noted the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

Proposed detached new house with incorporated double garage.

Proposed detached new house with incorporated double garage.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of amended plans.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Parker spoke on behalf of Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council and Mr. Matthews spoke in support of the application.

Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, noted that the site had outline planning permission for a bungalow but felt that the scale of development proposed in this application would be out of character with the locality.  He supported the comment of Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council that highway safety would be compromised by the intensified use of the access.  He commented that a reduction in slab level might mitigate some of the impact of the development but noted that a covenant could prevent this from being achieved.  He proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of over-intensive development and loss of residential amenity.

Some Members concurred with the Local Ward Member about the potential harmful effect on residential amenity and expressed concerns about access, slab levels, landscaping and impact on a nearby bridleway.

Other Members supported the application and felt that the site was large enough to accommodate the proposed development subject to the conditions recommended by Officers.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: the Traffic Manager had no objection to the access and parking arrangements subject to conditions; it was understood that a covenant restricted the ability to alter or adjust the ground level but this was not a planning consideration and a condition had been added in respect of slab levels and landscaping; this proposal should not have a direct impact on the bridleway.

A motion to refuse the application failed and the application was then approved subject to conditions.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      A09 (Amended plans).

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

2.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

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

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

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

4.      E19 (Obscure glazing to windows).

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

5.      F10 (Restriction on hours of operation of machinery/equipment).

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

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

         Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and prevent pollution.

7.      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.

8.      G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

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

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

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

10.    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.

Informatives:

1.      N01 - Access for all.

2.      N03  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Construction of hostel to accommodate up to 56 seasonal workers employed by the Tillington Fruit Farms.

Construction of hostel to accommodate up to 56 seasonal workers employed by the Tillington Fruit Farms.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that the applicant had sought amendments to conditions 16 and 17.  Revised wording was now recommended which retained the control that was sought by Officers but also satisfied the applicant’s concerns.  An additional condition was also recommended to require the construction of a footpath along the visibility splay at the entrance to the site.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council and Mr. Brown spoke in support of the application.

Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, commented on the substantial numbers of seasonal workers in the locality and noted that local residents would prefer to see properly planned development rather than the use of basic caravan accommodation.  He felt it essential that workers should not be allowed to bring their vehicles onto the site.  The constraints of the local road network were explained and Councillor Guthrie commented on the need for engineering works to improve highway and pedestrian safety.  He acknowledged that local residents were concerned about drainage provision but noted that recommended condition 6 would ensure that a viable solution was implemented.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the improvements to the site entrance, with the introduction of a visibility splay and a footpath, would improve safety on the adjoining road.  It was agreed that the Local Ward Member would be consulted about these works.

A number of Members commented on the need for appropriate accommodation for seasonal workers and welcomed the proposals.  To mitigate the impact of the development, it was suggested that particular weight be given to the conditions relating to landscaping.  It was also suggested that the applicant be required to maintain existing and proposed footpaths in the interests of highway safety.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that comments about the need for additional signage along the road would be reported to the Traffic Manager.

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.      The occupation of the hostel shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working in the locality in agriculture.

         Reason:  It would be contrary to Development Plan policies to grant planning permission for hostel accommodation in this location except to meet the expressed case of agricultural need.

5.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

6.      F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal).

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

7.      F32 (Details of floodlighting/external lighting).

         Reason: To safeguard local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Proposed dwelling in garden.

Proposed dwelling in garden.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of further correspondence from the applicant’s agent and summarised the contents.  He also reported that Councillor Wilcox had expressed concerns about potential overdevelopment and access arrangements.

Councillor W.J. Walling, a Local Ward Member, felt that the site could accommodate a dwelling and made comparisons with other buildings in the locality.  Therefore, he endorsed the application and proposed that planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the proposal was acceptable and would result in access improvements to Folly Drive.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that access was a reserved matter.

RESOLVED: That

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Local Ward Members and the Chairman, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

(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 approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above.

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

Conversion of 4 flats to 3 no. 2-storey mews houses and 1 first floor flat; demolition of outbuildings and development of 2 no. cottages; and extension to existing take away.

Conversion of 4 flats to 3 no. 2-storey mews houses and 1 first floor flat; demolition of outbuildings and development of 2 no. cottages; and extension to existing take away.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that a Flood Risk Assessment had been provided but had not been assessed by the Environment Agency; therefore, the recommendation remained the same as printed in the report.

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

Councillor Mrs. W.U. Attfield, a Local Ward Member, commented on difficulties with traffic movements in the vicinity of the site and felt that the proposal would have detrimental impact on the character of this part of Hereford.  Councillor Attfield noted that the building was quite large already and felt that the additions would make it far too dominant.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, said that traffic movements already posed significant dangers and would be exacerbated by this proposal; particularly given the amount of traffic on Hinton Road, the amount of pedestrian footfall and cycle use in the area, and the positions of the shops and nearby bus stop.  He felt that the proposal was over intensive and planning permission should be refused.

Councillor R. Preece, the other Local Ward Member, drew attention to the Traffic Manager’s concerns and commented on the constraints of the site.

The Development Control Manager advised the Sub-Committee that the Area Engineer felt unable to support refusal on highways and traffic grounds given that the proposal would introduce an element of off street parking.  It was noted, however, that the intensity of the development and the impact on the character and appearance of the area were material planning considerations. 

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Conservation Manager had been consulted about the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings but had also expressed a view that the proposal should not be overly detrimental to the character of the complex.  The Principal Planning Officer also clarified the scale of the proposed development.

A number of Members supported the views of the Local Ward Members.  Comments were made about the Traffic Manager’s views and it was felt that traffic congestion had been underestimated, particularly at peak times.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.            The proposal due to its cumulative scale and the intensification of development will have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of the area.  As such the development is contrary to Policies ENV14, H3, H12, H14, H21 of the Hereford Local Plan and Policies S1, S2, DR1, DR2, H13, H14 and H17 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

(ii)     If the Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Cider house/store/packing shed.

Cider house/store/packing shed.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of further correspondence from the applicant.

Councillor R.M. Wilson, the Local Ward Member, supported the application but sought clarification about matters detailed in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the report.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the building would be used for traditional cider making and as a tourist attraction for approximately two weeks a year and advised that an existing static caravan was presently sited there lawfully under the Caravans and Control of Development Act 1960.

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.      A08 (Development in accordance with approved plans and materials).

         Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans and to protect the general character and amenities of the area.

3.      G12 (Planting of hedgerows).

         Reason: To ensure that hedges planted are ecologically and environmentally rich and to assist their permanent retention in the landscape.

4.      H03 (Visibility splays).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Informative:

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

Residential development comprising 2 no. 2 bedroom flats.

Residential development comprising 2 no. 2 bedroom flats.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, had expressed concerns about parking provision and suggested that there should be two spaces per unit.

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

In response to comments made by the speaker, the Senior Planning Officer advised the Sub-Committee that: recommended condition 13 would require precise details of the trees on site for the purpose of protecting trees in the Conservation Area; a condition could be added to require details of boundary treatments; the closest point between the proposal and Frank Owen Court was approximately 15 metres and inter-visibility was mitigated by the difference in slab levels; and the development would not reduce the on-street parking lay-by arrangement.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas commented on the need for the conditions to be adhered to in order to preserve residential amenity.

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.      The fenestration of the development hereby approved shall be of timber construction with finishes to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

         Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

5.      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.

6.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

7.      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.

8.      H06 (Vehicular access construction).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9.      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.

10.    G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

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

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

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

12.    G06 (Scope of landscaping scheme).

         Reason: In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied that the deposited scheme will meet their requirements.

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

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

14.    G01 (Details of boundary treatments)

Informatives:

1.      N01 - Access for all.

2.      N03 - Adjoining property  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Siting of temporary caravan for use during construction period of new dwelling.

Siting of temporary caravan for use during construction period of new dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of the comments of Fownhope Parish Council (who were in general agreement but suggested that the permission be for no more than two years).  Three additional conditions were recommended in line with the comments of the Water Authority.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the limit for the temporary permission would be twelve months.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, noted that this application concerned the siting of a temporary caravan only.  She advised the Sub-Committee that temporary permission would be acceptable to local residents subject to the re-orientation of the caravan to mitigate the perception of overlooking and loss of privacy.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer suggested a condition that would require the erection of a boundary screen to address this issue.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

1.      E23 (Temporary permission and reinstatement of land (mobile home/caravan)).

         Reason: The local planning authority is not prepared to permit a residential caravan in this location other than on a temporary basis having regard to the special circumstances of the case.

2.      There shall be no, direct or indirect, discharge of surface water to the public foul sewer.

         Reason: To safeguard the public sewerage system and reduce the risk of surcharge flooding.

3.      Within 1 month of the date of this permission a privacy screen shall be introduced to the south east of the mobile caravan hereby authorised and retained until the use of the site for the siting of a caravan ceases.  The siting, design, height, length and materials of the privacy screen shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  The screen shall then be introduced in accordance with the agreed details.

         Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the locality.

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

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

Siting of temporary living accommodation for agricultural workers.

Siting of temporary living accommodation for agricultural workers.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a page was missing from the Planning Statement appended to the report and this was circulated to Members at the meeting.  It was reported that four further letters of support had been received.  The Principal Planning Officer also reported that further correspondence had been received from the applicant’s agent and summarised the contents.  Officers maintained their recommendation of refusal but, given the information supplied by the applicant’s agent regarding the available property situation in the locality, an amendment to the recommendation was suggested.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Hodgeson spoke on behalf of a number of local residents in objection to the application and Mr. Soble spoke in support of the application.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, commented on value of the arguments put forward by both speakers and the amount of work that had been undertaken.  To ensure that the Sub-Committee could reach a well-informed and assessed decision, Councillor Thomas proposed that a site inspection be held.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCE2006/1772/F be deferred for a site inspection for the following reason:

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

Erect single dwelling.

Erect single dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of four further letters of objection from the occupiers of Mizpah, Montrose, Munns Cottage and The Vinery and summarised the contents.

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

Councillor J.C. Mayson, the Local Ward Member, felt unable to support the proposal given the material objections of Wellington Parish Council and local residents.  He commented that the development would be over intensive for the site and would result in a loss of residential amenity.  He also commented that access and parking problems could arise.

Other Members concurred with the Local Ward Member that the proposal would result in a feeling of overcrowding which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.     The proposed dwelling by reason of its scale and design, and its relationship to the neighbouring properties, would represent an unacceptably cramped form of development, which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the adjoining properties and have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies GD1 and SH8 of the South Herefordshire District Local Plan, and Policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

(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 application to the Head of Planning Services.]

Installation of acoustic housing and silencer to kitchen extract on existing public house.

Installation of acoustic housing and silencer to kitchen extract on existing public house.

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

The Local Ward Members commented that none of them had received letters of complaint about noise from the ventilation duct directly.  Whilst acknowledging the objector’s concerns, it was noted that the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager considered that the measures would ‘bring noise levels down below background noise levels and abate the existing nuisance’.  The Chairman commented that, regrettably, Members did not always receive notice about letters of complaint from residents in their Ward.

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.      The installation of the acoustic housing and silencer shall be installed in accordance with the acoustic report prepared by Acoustic Design Technology within one month of the date of this permission.  The approved installation shall thereafter be maintained in perpetuity.

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Informative:

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

Separation of existing dwelling to form two dwellings.

Separation of existing dwelling to form two dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Robinson spoke on behalf of Belmont Rural Parish Council and Mr. Pritchard spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor P.J. Edwards, a Local Ward Member, said that he was unable to support the application as the access and egress and parking arrangements were unacceptable.  He questioned how safe access could be achieved given the position of the existing dwelling and the signage and service fittings outside the site.  He felt that the proposal did not conform to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) policies DR1 (Design), H14 (Re-using Previously Developed Land and Buildings), H15 (Density), H16 (Car Parking) and H17 (Sub-division of Existing Housing), H19 (Open space requirements), and South Herefordshire District Plan policies GD1 (General Development Criteria), T3 (Highway Safety Requirements) and T4 (Highway and Car Parking Standards).

Councillor Ms. G.A. Powell, also a Local Ward Member, drew attention to the comments of Belmont Rural Parish Council, particularly the view that there was insufficient space to park four vehicles within the remodelled frontage, and felt that the proposal should be refused.

Councillor J.W. Newman, the other Local Member, felt that highway safety would be compromised by the proposal and that the visual impact of parking arrangements would not be in keeping with the locality.

The Development Control Manager commented that the Traffic Manager was satisfied with the proposal but acknowledged Members’ concerns about the impact of the proposed car parking on the character and appearance of the area.

A number of Members felt that the proposal was over intensive and would have a detrimental impact on the area.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The division of this dwelling, sited at the junction of Coppin Rise and Yarlington Mill, will increase the amount of parking at this visually prominent location to the detriment of the amenity and character of the area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DR1 and H17 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and GD1 of the South Herefordshire District Local Plan.

(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 application to the Head of Planning Services.]

Proposed single storey extension.

Proposed single storey extension.

RESOLVED:

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approved the application 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.      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.      B03 (Matching external materials (general)).

         Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

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

The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday 23rd August, 2006 at 2.00 p.m..

Wednesday 23rd August, 2006 at 2.00 p.m.