To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received as follows:

For both the morning and afternoon parts of the meeting: Councillors WU Attfield, DJ Benjamin, SPA Daniels, DW Greenow and AM Toon.

For the morning part of the meeting: Councillors GFM Dawe, PJ Edwards, MAF Hubbard, MD Lloyd-Hayes, NL Vaughan, WJ Walling and DB Wilcox.

For the afternoon part of the meeting: Councillors RI Matthews and SJ Robertson.

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.

5.   DCCW2008/1832/N - Upper House Farm, Moreton-on-Lugg, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 8AH [Agenda Item 5].

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

Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal and Prejudicial; Declared the interest before the meeting and, therefore, did not attend the morning part of the meeting.

Councillor KS Guthrie; Personal.

6.   DCCE2008/2266/F - Land to the West of Veldo Farm and East of the A465 at Nunnington, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 3QB [Agenda Item 6].

Councillor H Davies; Personal.

Councillor KS Guthrie; Personal.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes; Personal.

Councillor AP Taylor; Personal.

Councillor WJ Walling; Personal.

11.    [A] DCCW2008/2616/F and [B] DCCW2008/2617/L - St. Andrews Church, Bridge Sollars, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 7JH [Agenda Item 11].

Councillor DB Wilcox; Personal.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2008 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 about the Council's position in relation to the planning appeals for the central area.

Construction and operation of an open windrow greenwaste composting facility: office / welfare facility, storage building, weighbridge, hardstanding process area, car parking, ancillary infrastructure and landscaping.

Construction and operation of an open windrow greenwaste composting facility: office / welfare facility, storage building, weighbridge, hardstanding process area, car parking, ancillary infrastructure and landscaping.

At the start of the item, the Head of Planning and Transportation referred to some of the critical factors, as follows:

¨        the national, regional and local policy background;

¨        the complicated and technical nature of the scheme and the consultee responses;

¨        the public speaking time had been increased as this was a major application;

¨        the Sub-Committee needed to consider the policy issues and material considerations and give appropriate weight to the various factors;

¨        the Council was the responsible authority for waste but this application was by a private company and the site was private land;

¨        attention was drawn to paragraphs 4.1 and 6.1 which confirmed that the proposal would require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and this 'could only be granted if the site were capable of complying with the appropriate Regulations';

¨        in response to objectors' concerns about potential pollution and impact on air quality, paragraphs 6.33 to 6.41 detailed the environmental considerations;

¨        paragraphs 6.42 to 6.46 outlined issues in respect of other sites and technologies.

The Principal Planning Officer (Minerals and Waste) presented the officer's report and highlighted some of the key issues, including:

§         The proposal was for an open windrow composting facility exclusively for treating garden cuttings, no treatment of any other waste types was proposed as part of this application.

§         The applicant had investigated 21 other sites but this was the first site that the applicant had deemed suitable and available.

§         A full Environmental Statement was not required but the application included full and comprehensive environmental assessments.

§         Herefordshire currently generated 7,000 tonnes of green waste per year and this was estimated to grow to around 12,000 tonnes per year by 2027, the application proposed utilising spare capacity by initially supplementing Herefordshire's garden waste from Worcestershire.

§         The access would be from the A49 (T) along a recently constructed track linked to a permitted sand and gravel extraction site on adjoining land at St. Donats Farm, the access also provided the sole access to Upper House Farm and associated poultry units.

§         The parish boundary between Burghill and Moreton crossed the site at the point where the proposed access road would enter the development site.

§         A revised plan for the sealed wastewater lagoon had increased capacity to account for a 1:1000-year extreme event plus climate change and the Environment Agency welcomed this amendment.

§         The hardstanding process area would be raised and kerbed to ensure adequate drainage to the lagoon.

§         The stockpiles and windrows would be up to 3 metres high, with landscaped earth bunding providing some screening.

§         The size and height of the office/welfare facility would be restricted and would be painted green in order to reduce visual impact.

§         Photographs of the site and views into the site from various vantage points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

[Note: To assist the Local Member, Agenda Item 11 (Minute 85) was considered before Item 6 (Minute 80) but the original agenda order is preserved in the minutes for ease of reference.]

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         Correspondence had been received from Withington Parish Council in response to amended plans, comments included: the development would be more appropriate in an industrial estate; some parts of the site were generally flat but the eastern part increased in height by around 15 metres; the need to achieve a balance between economic benefits and environmental loss was noted; the efforts made to reduce the impact of the development was recognised; the Parish Council withdrew its objection to the polytunnels on the lower part of the site; and the Parish Council welcomed the proposal to reduce the height of some areas of polytunnels and the fencing off of the footpaths.

·         The Landscape Officer considered that the amended proposals satisfactorily mitigated the landscape and visual impact of the polytunnels and therefore it was not considered necessary to remove further rows of polytunnels from the eastern end of the site as suggested by Withington Parish Council.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that recommended condition 23 would control the areas where the polytunnel covers would remain and the amended plans identified the areas where the height of the polytunnels would be restricted.

The Chairman thanked the officer for the additional work on this proposal following the deferral of the item at the last meeting.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Soutar spoke on behalf of Withington Parish Council, Mr. Wray spoke in objection to the application, and Mr. Hawkins spoke in support of the application.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that plastic structures in the countryside were unpopular but considered this proposal acceptable subject to a reduction in the number of rows from the eastern part of the site; it was noted that the Parish Council recommended the removal of 20 rows.  He added that this would enable the proposed additional planting to mature, so that there would be an established screen if there were any further proposals to reinstate rows in the future.

In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the scheme had been adjusted in order to mitigate visual impact and, in particular, to avoid polytunnels breaking the skyline when viewed from various vantage points.  This had resulted in a number of rows being removed from the proposal but officers did not consider it necessary to remove 20 rows.  He commented that the economic assessment provided by the applicant had not been scrutinised independently but the figures were in line with those provided in a recent planning appeal case for another site.

Councillor PJ Edwards, noting the concerns raised, suggested that officers be authorised to determine the application subject to further consideration being given to the row numbers and heights, in consultation with the Local Member and the Chairman.  Councillor ACR Chappell supported this suggestion and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

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

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

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Member, explained the reasons for the delay in the receipt of Fownhope Parish Council's comments.  It was noted that Fownhope Parish Council and Mordiford Parish Council had expressed concerns about certain elements of the development but acknowledged the need for compromise and for pragmatic solutions.

Councillor PJ Edwards asked a number of questions, including: whether, with the removal of the external elements identified, there would be a requirement to reinstate areas of hardstanding to its original earth/garden state; whether conditions could require the removal of the additional level of habitable area within the garage; and, given the scale of the unauthorised development, whether a suitable planning obligation could be secured.  The Central Team Leader responded by advising that: it was reasonable to expect a hard surface outside the backdoor to a dwelling but officers could review the external surface treatments as necessary; as an internal structure, the additional level in the garage could be used as long as it remained ancillary to the main dwelling; and the purpose of planning obligations was to mitigate the direct impact of new development and, therefore, obligations were not usually sought for replacement dwellings with a similar number of bedrooms to the original property.  Councillor Edwards felt that the significant increase in dimensions would result in more intensive use and, therefore, considered that a planning obligation to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure would be reasonable in this instance.  The Chairman noted that Fownhope Parish Council would support this suggestion.

Councillor GFM Dawe said that the site was in a tremendously sensitive location, being in a prominent position within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest, and considered that the building constructed was not comparable in size and scale with the original cottage, even with the removal of external elements.

Councillor ACR Chappell noted concerns about the retrospective nature of the application, the suggestion by Fownhope Parish Council that a planning obligation should be imposed, and did not consider the application to be acceptable without an appropriate contribution towards local facilities to moderate the impact of the unauthorised development.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes commented on the landscape considerations and said that the authority had to be consistent in its approach to planning obligations.

The Legal Practice Manager explained that the same criteria had to be applied to retrospective applications as for regular applications and no element of punitive action could be considered.  He also explained the risks that developers took when building unauthorised structures.

Councillor PA Andrews did not consider that this proposal had addressed the fundamental policy objections given as reasons for refusal in respect of the last application for the retention of the building and should be refused due to the mass, size and design of the property.

Councillor Edwards questioned whether the authority would be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Two storey extension to side to form garage on ground floor with bedroom & en suite bathroom above.  Single storey rear extension to form utility & kitchen.

Two storey extension to side to form garage on ground floor with bedroom & en suite bathroom above.  Single storey rear extension to form utility & kitchen.

The Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the occupant of 4 St. David's Rise, withdrawing an initial objection to the proposal.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Member, did not consider that there were any material planning reasons against the proposal and he supported the officer's recommendation.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes felt that the development would be an improvement and noted that the only objection had now been withdrawn.

Councillor PJ Edwards, referring to the Traffic Manager's comment that 3 car parking spaces were required, commented on the need to ensure that there was satisfactory room to manoeuvre vehicles when parking.

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.      B01 (Development in accordance with the approved plans).

         Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      C03 (Matching external materials (general)).

         Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

4.      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.

5.      H10 (Parking - single house).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

2.      HN01 - Mud on highway.

3.      HN05 - Works within the highway.

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

5.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

Construction of three detached dwellings.

Construction of three detached dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that Welsh Water had confirmed that there was capacity for mains drainage connection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Clifford, Mrs. Watkins and Mrs. Temperley spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Pearce spoke in support of the application.

In response to a concern raised by an objector, the Principal Planning Officer reported that, whilst it was understood that the applicant had a legal right to connect to an existing private system associated with Burcott House, the applicant now intended to pursue connection to the mains drain.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Member, felt that the existing access was unsafe and noted that, even with the proposed widening, the access would not be up to full adoptable standards.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site did not need to be served by an adopted road and the proposed minimum width of 4.5m was not untypical of residential estate roads and was wide enough to enable two vehicles to pass simultaneously.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Member, said that connection to mains drainage should be the investigated first as a preferred option for new developments.  He felt that the impact of the proposal had to be given careful consideration, particularly given the position of the site within the Conservation Area and adjoining Aylestone Park.  He proposed that a site inspection be undertaken, particularly as the steepness of the slope towards the site was not apparent from the photographs shown.  He also noted local residents' concerns about the access arrangements.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that Aylestone Park Association had commented on the application but the points arising were incorporated into the objectors' responses, rather than quoted separately.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application 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.

Installation of new palisade fencing to boundary to replace dilapidated wooden fence.  Application in retrospect.

Installation of new palisade fencing to boundary to replace dilapidated wooden fence.  Application in retrospect.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the occupants of 7 Redbrook Close in response to amended plans; the amended plans were accepted but it was suggested that larch lap panels be used rather than ply wood sheets.  The Planning Officer recommended an additional condition (condition 3 below) in respect of the materials to be used.

Councillor ACR Chappell, a Local Member, acknowledged the need for improved security at the premises and, subject to appropriate materials, supported the recommendation of approval.  Councillor AT Oliver, also a Local Member, concurred and noted that Lower Bullingham Parish Council had no objections to the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      B03 (Amended plans).

Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.       CO8 (Colour of cladding).

         Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.       Details of the materials to be used on the internal fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its construction.

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

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

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

New disabled access provision to support church re-ordering to include drop off area, new all weather path to extend entrance of building.  Installation of trenches to provide ground source heat and Trench Arch foul drainage system.

New disabled access provision to support church re-ordering to include drop off area, new all weather path to extend entrance of building.  Installation of trenches to provide ground source heat and Trench Arch foul drainage system.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         Conservation Manager (Landscape), concerns regarding the impact of the lay-by on the landscape and the setting of the church.

·         Conservation Manger (Historic Buildings), no objection subject to conditions.

·         Conservation Manager (Archaeology), no objection subject to conditions.

·         English Heritage, had been involved in this proposal and was supportive of the principle subject to no concerns on archaeology grounds.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that discussions had been held with the agent and local residents regarding the removal of the lay-by from the scheme to overcome the objections.  It was noted that the Transportation Manager would raise no objection to the removal of the lay-by from the plans.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applicants were willing to remove this element; the applicant had also emphasised the need for a swift determination to assist with the funding process.  Therefore, it was recommended that officers be authorised to determine the application on receipt of amended plans removing the lay-by from the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Redshaw spoke on behalf of Bishopstone and District Parish Council, Mr. Ridout spoke on behalf of local residents and Mr. Macklin spoke on behalf of the applicants.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Local Member, welcomed the comments of the speakers and noted that, especially with the removal of the lay-by element, the principle of the development was supported within the local community.  He endorsed the recommendation and, noting that time was short to meet funding requirements, asked that he be kept informed of progress as the Local Member.

A number of members noted that this was an interesting scheme and spoke in support of the application.

RESOLVED:

That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to determine the applications on receipt of amended plans removing the lay-by from the proposal, subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers.

1.       In respect of DCCW2008/2616/F 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.    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.

3.    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 and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.    N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

2.    N15 - Reason(s) for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

7 January 2009

4 February 2009

4 March 2009

7 January 2009

4 February 2009

4 March 2009