To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors DJ Benjamin, DW Greenow, RI Matthews, AM Toon and NL Vaughan.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

69.            DCCE2008/2168/F - Oaklands Nursing Home, 43 Bodenham Road, Hereford,             Herefordshire, HR1 2TP [Agenda Item 5].

            Councillor AJM Blackshaw; Personal and Prejudicial; left the meeting for the             duration of the item.

            Councillor PA Andrews; Personal.

            Councillor AP Taylor; Personal.

70.            DCCW2008/1721/F - 10 Doncaster Avenue, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 9TE [Agenda Item 6].

            Councillor SJ Robertson; Personal and Prejudicial; left the meeting for the duration of the item.

71.            DCCW2008/2101/F - Tesco Stores Ltd, Abbotsmead Road, Belmont, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR2 7XS [Agenda Item 7].

            Councillor PA Andrews; Personal and Prejudicial; left the meeting for the duration of the item.

            Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal.

            Councillor GA Powell; Personal.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2008 be approved as a correct record.

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

The Sub-Committee received an information report about the Council's position in relation to the planning appeals for the central area.

In respect of application DCCW2007/2834/F the Legal Practice Manager said that the appellants had submitted a claim for costs in the sum of £67,000 which he was trying to mitigate.  Councillor DB Wilcox was of the view that it would be useful if the report stipulated whether the appeals related to refusals by the Sub-Committee or to refusals made under delegated powers by the Officers.

Addition to application DCCE2006/4002/F additional wing to mimic existing agreed wing in length, width, height and construction.

Addition to application DCCE2006/4002/F additional wing to mimic existing agreed wing in length, width, height and construction.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Newman spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DB Wilcox, one of the Local Ward Members, felt that the site inspection had been extremely useful in determining how the additional wing would be integrated into the site by carefully reducing the slab levels to make it the same height as the existing extension.  He also felt that the ancillary issues had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner and commended the quality of the proposals.  He considered however that a limit had now been reached in developing the Nursing Home and that there should be no additional extensions permitted.  Councillor PJ Edwards was also in favour of the application, subject to the historic boundary wall of the site being protected.  The Principal Planning Officer said that a condition could be added to protect the structural integrity of the wall after the works had been completed.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and a further condition to protect the structural integrity of the historic boundary wall:

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.      B04 (Amendment to existing permission) (DCCE2006/4002/F - 7 March 2007).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      C02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

         Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

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

Proposed house adjoining No. 10 with parking.

Proposed house adjoining No. 10 with parking.

Councillor SPA Daniels, one of the Local Ward Members, had concerns about the potential overdevelopment of the site which she felt was a valuable area of open space.  She also had concerns about the highway safety aspects of the proposed vehicular access on the corner of the site and was of the view that there was little scope for adequate safety measures.  She proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment.  Councillor PA Andrews, another Local Ward Member, was not entirely satisfied with the scheme but felt that there were no reasonable planning grounds for its refusal.  She was however concerned at the sum of £5,568 payable for one dwelling under the proposed Heads of Terms.  The Central Team Leader said that such sums related to the impact of applications and the need for mitigation.

The Sub-Committee discussed the merits of the scheme and the issues for and against it.  A resolution that the application be refused led to a tied vote.  The Chairman used her casting vote for approval.

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.      B03 (Amended plans) (15 September 2008).

         Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      B07 (Section 106 Agreement).

         Reason: In order to provide [enhanced sustainable transport infrastructure, educational facilities, improved play space, public art, waste recycling and affordable housing] in accordance with Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

4.      C01 (Samples of external materials).

Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.      F08 (No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation).

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

6.      F14 (Removal of permitted development rights).

         Reason: In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy H13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7.      F15 (No windows in side elevation of extension).

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

8.      G09 (Details of Boundary treatments).

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development has an acceptable standard of privacy and to conform to Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

9.      H06 (Vehicular access construction).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

10.    H09 (Driveway gradient).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission DCCW2007/1229/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission DCCW2007/1229/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

The Principal Planning Officer said that a condition should be added to any approval to ensure that the applicants dealt with the ongoing maintenance and repair of the acoustic wall between the application site and the adjoining dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor PJ Edwards, one of the Local Ward Members, said that he had been in discussion with the applicants for a considerable length of time regarding the maintenance of the leylandii tree screening and the acoustic fence.  He felt that there were no grounds to refuse the application but that adequate conditions needed to be included about the following:

§         maintenance of the fence, trees and hedges;

§         a parking restriction on Abbotsmead road;

§         the engines of delivery vehicles should not be left running on site; and

§         the installation of an exhaust extraction system on site. 

Councillor GA Powell, another Local Ward Member, felt that the situation regarding noise, disturbance and fumes suffered by local residents was intolerable and that the application should be refused on the grounds of the adverse impact it had on residential amenity.

Councillor ACR Chappell was of the view that the company had previously been granted temporary permission for the use and that because they had failed to comply with its terms and conditions regarding hours of use and noise attenuation during this period, the application should be refused. Councillors MD Lloyd-Hayes and AT Oliver shared this view and was particularly concerned at the impact of the business on adjoining residents.  Councillor MAF Hubbard felt that the noise attenuation barrier needed to be improved and that the permission could be extended for a further trial period but with stronger conditions controlling the impact on local residents.  The situation could then be assessed to determine if the applicants had complied.  Councillor DB Wilcox suggested that the objectors needed to keep a diary of any disturbances and fume pollution which arose and notify their local ward members.  The Environment Protection Manager could then monitor and deal with such complaints.  Councillor GFM Dawe was of the view that the noise, disturbance and problems arising from exhaust fumes was intolerable for adjoining residents and that permission should be refused.  Councillor PJ Edwards was also concerned that despite having asked for some eighteen months for the appropriate maintenance of the screening to be undertaken, it was only now that the company had informed the Principal Planning Officer that it would be prepared to consider doing something about it.  Councillor H Davies, one of the Local Ward Members, was of the view that the business would be better operated from the town centre Tesco Store because of the deliberate lack of maintenance at the Belmont site. 

The Principal Planning Officer said that he had received no complaints about the business until the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Retention of replacement dwelling, less conservatory, front canopy, side porch and rear lean-to utility, cloakroom and rear entrance.

The Sub-Committee noted that there were certain issues regarding consultation of the local parish council and agreed with the suggestion of the Chairman that the application should be deferred.

RESOLVED

That consideration of the application be deferred pending the outcome of consultation with Fownhope Parish Council.

Proposed erection of 14 hectares of polytunnels for soft fruit growing.  New general purpose storage building.  Associated hardstanding and access roadways.  Balancing pond.

The Chairman informed the Sub-Committee that the Local Ward Member was unable to attend the meeting due to illness.  There were a number of issues he wanted to raise about the application and the Chairman therefore suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred.

RESOLVED

That consideration of the application be deferred.

3 December 2008

7 January 2009

4 February 2009

The dates of future meetings were given as 3 December 2008, 7 January 2009 and 4 February 2009.