To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors PA Andrews, ACR Chappell, H Davies, GFM Dawe, GA Powell and AP Taylor.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

5.      DCCE0009/1661/F - 21 Aylestone Hill, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1HR

Councillor WU Attfield; Personal.

Councillor NL Vaughan; Personal.

7.      DCCW0009/1390/F - Land adjacent to Dinham, Ryeland Street, Hereford, HR4 0LA

Councillor SJ Robertson; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of the item.

9.      DCCW0009/1678/RM - Land to the North of Roman Road, Holmer, Hereford, HR1 1LE

Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal.

Councillor SJ Robertson; Personal.

Councillor AM Toon; Prejudicial; Councillor Toon exercised the opportunity to speak before withdrawing for the remainder of the item.

K Bishop, Central Team Leader; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of the item.

10.    DCCE0009/1718/O - Land adjacent to Methodist Church, East Street, Hereford, Herefordshire.

Councillor WU Attfield; Personal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard; Personal.

Councillor DB Wilcox; Personal.

Councillor JD Woodward; Personal.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

Proposed extension to provide private accommodation, change of use from single dwelling to bed and breakfast and replacement access and parking area.  Painting of external render.

Proposed extension to provide private accommodation, change of use from single dwelling to bed and breakfast and replacement access and parking area.  Painting of external render.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent advising that the extension was now 5.5 metres from the neighbouring property, existing boundary vegetation had recently been removed and the neighbours existing pergola reduced daylight and sunlight to the window due to the timber running south west and the existing dwelling obscured sun from the south east.

§               Amended plans had been submitted reducing the size of the first floor windows to high level obscure glazed windows and reducing the width of the extension by ¾ metre.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The amended plans assisted in mitigating the impact on the neighbour and were considered acceptable.  Therefore, the recommendation was adjusted accordingly.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, made a number of comments, including:

·               The layout suggested a high density of occupation, with consequential impacts on residential amenity and traffic generation.

·               Although obscure glazed windows would partly improve the privacy considerations, the extension would still have an impact on sunlight reaching the neighbouring dwelling which was Grade II listed and situated within the Conservation Area.

·               The development would involve the loss of garden on both the frontage and rear of the property.

·               The design of the railings would not be in keeping with other properties in the locality.

·               Given these and other considerations, Councillor Vaughan proposed that the application be refused as the proposed development would have an overintensive and overbearing impact on the local area, would not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and would be detrimental to residential amenities.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, also expressed a number of points, including:

o              It was questioned whether the property was suitable for the development proposed.

o              Attention was drawn to comment in the report that ‘a parking area could be created under permitted development rights in any event’ and Councillor Wilcox said that the Sub-Committee had to consider the application before them and he did not consider that the proposal would either preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. 

o              Concerns were expressed about the potential impact of the proposed use on traffic movements and highway safety, particularly given the history of accidents on Aylestone Hill.

o              It was suggested that a single, rather than a two storey extension might be more acceptable.  However, the current proposal would be overbearing and would have a deleterious impact on the light and outlook enjoyed by the neighbouring property.

o              The removal of vegetation by the occupants of the neighbouring property was not a material planning issue and should not form part of the consideration.

o              The proposed 36% increase in floor area was considered significant on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated parking.

Erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated parking.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent advising that the land served no other property other than their clients, the proposed use would have less impact than a new commercial use, and the proposed development enhances the Conservation Area.

Councillor AM Toon, a Local Ward Member, commented on traffic congestion and access issues and said that there was a need for additional road markings to prevent blockages and facilitate easier access and egress.  It was questioned whether this site was suitable for residential development given the predominantly commercial uses in the vicinity, particularly given the potential impact of commercial activities on the future occupants of the dwellings.  Given these and other considerations, Councillor Toon proposed that the application be refused as the site was not considered suitable for residential development, would represent an overintensive form of development, highway safety issues, and would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Councillor SPA Daniels, also a Local Ward Member, did not consider the site to be suitable for the form of development proposed and commented on the proximity of a bus lane to the access.  A number of Members expressed similar views.

Councillor WJ Walling suggested that consideration should be given to the provision of an access via the adjoining Aldi superstore car park.  Councillor PJ Edwards concurred and questioned whether deferral of the application could provide an opportunity for the applicant to examine this possibility with the relevant landowner/s.

Councillor MAF Hubbard acknowledged the traffic problems on the local road network but reminded the Sub-Committee that there was an established historic access from the highway.  He suggested that informal parking on the site perhaps generated more traffic movements than would be the case with a residential development.  He also noted that it was for potential future occupants to decide whether the dwellings provided a suitable form of accommodation for their particular needs.

Councillor NL Vaughan expressed concerns about the limited comment provided by the Traffic Manager regarding access and highways issues.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Members needed to consider the application before them, the proposal could result in a net reduction in parking on the site, the development would comprise modest two, two-bedroom dwellings, there was already mixed use development in the area which was not untypical of vibrant city centre locations, and the proximity of the site to the city centre was likely to limit the number of vehicular movements.

A motion to approve the application failed and a motion to refuse planning permission was then agreed.

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 and Transportation) provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Proposed new dwelling.

Proposed new dwelling.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection, particularly as it helped members understand the constraints of the site.  Councillor Woodward considered that the application should be refused as the proposal would have an overbearing impact on adjoining properties (particularly to the property to the north of the site), would represent an overdevelopment of the site, and on design grounds.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, also a Local Ward Member, expressed reservations about the design and commented that some form of development might be acceptable if the building was moved further back on the site.  Therefore, he felt unable to support the application in its present form.

The design approach was debated and a number of members felt that the siting of the development needed to be reconsidered in order to minimise the impact on adjoining properties.  Councillor RI Matthews urged officers to make every effort to address the concerns with the applicant.

Councillor AM Toon questioned whether there was merit in deferring the application to discuss possible amendments with the applicant.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the orientation of the site was not square and adjusting the position of the building further back would move the mass closer to adjoining properties and officers did not consider that the consequential impact on residential amenity would be acceptable.  He explained the design approach and commented that the re-positioning of the building, resulting in a larger area of forecourt, would be a discordant feature in the streetscape.

A number of Members felt that the design and position of the building could be adjusted without significant impact on neighbouring properties.

In response to a comment by Councillor NL Vaughan about the lack of detail provided, the Senior Planning Officer advised that a condition was recommended in respect of external materials and it was intended that contemporary materials would be used but these would be sympathetic to the streetscape.

Councillor Woodward commented on the potential impact of the proposal, in its current form, on the outlook and amenity of the adjoining property, ‘Winston’.

The Central Team Leader outlined the reasons for refusal in relation to the previous application [CW08/2658/F refers] and said that re-positioning the development further back on the site could have a more demonstrable detrimental impact on neighbouring properties than the current proposal.

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 and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The proposal would have an overbearing impact on adjoining properties;

2.            Would represent an overdevelopment of the site; and

3.            The design approach is not considered suitable.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

[A] Erection of four dwellings & [B] Conversion and change of use of existing garage to communal bin store.

[A] Erection of four dwellings & [B] Conversion and change of use of existing garage to communal bin store.

The Central Team Leader gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Further information had been received from the applicant’s agent confirming the improvements to access, refuse collection and use of land.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented on the attractive appearance of the Victorian house and garden and did not consider that the proposal was acceptable.  Councillor Woodward expressed concerns about overlooking, parking provision, refuse storage, and the impact on residential amenity.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, also a Local Ward Member, considered the proposal to be quite sympathetic to the area and did not envisage that the level of additional vehicle activity generated by the development would have a significant impact on the local road network.

Councillor DW Greenow said that the erection of four dwellings would have a major impact and felt that the applications should be refused. 

Councillor NL Vaughan expressed concerns about the principle of development, density and traffic.  He felt that the proposal would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and on the surrounding area.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that the site was brownfield land and therefore the principle of residential development was acceptable.

Councillor AT Oliver drew attention to the provisions of policy H14 (Re-using previously developed land and buildings) and commented on the need to safeguard existing property from loss of privacy and amenity.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on national planning policy guidance and considered that the applications were acceptable subject to conditions, with specific emphasis on recommended conditions 6 and 7.

Councillor RI Matthews commented on the need to protect the quality of life of residents, particularly in busy city centre locations, and supported refusal of the applications.

Councillor MAF Hubbard questioned whether refusal could be sustained on appeal and said that the development should not set a precedent in the area given the specific site circumstances in this case.

Councillor SPA Daniels drew attention to the comments in the letters of objection.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw acknowledged the arguments in favour and against the development and, whilst acknowledging that this involved classic backland development, felt that the density was perhaps too high.

In response to questions and comments, the Central Team Leader advised that loss of privacy and amenity were valid considerations but officers were of the opinion that the applications were acceptable in policy terms.  He also outlined the areas of landscaping to be retained and commented on appeal decisions on similar developments elsewhere.

Councillor Woodward said that the policies could not anticipate all individual site circumstances and re-iterated concerns about traffic, density and the impact of the development on the setting and surroundings.

A motion to refuse the applications failed and a motion to approve was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

In respect of DCCW0009/1406/F:

1.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Residential development of 300 dwellings including access from Roman Road, essential infrastructure, open space, balancing pond, landscaping, roads, parking, footpaths, cycleway and engineering earth works.

Residential development of 300 dwellings including access from Roman Road, essential infrastructure, open space, balancing pond, landscaping, roads, parking, footpaths, cycleway and engineering earth works.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Amended plans had been provided which covered the majority of the changes required by the Traffic Manager.  However, further amendments as detailed in the report had been requested and therefore further amended plans were required.

§               Further information regarding foul drainage had been provided by the developers as follows:

They confirmed that an order had been placed for the additional equipment required to bring the existing drainage infrastructure up to an adoptable standard and the equipment was to be installed within the next 4 to 6 weeks.  Within the same timescale, the land was to be transferred to Crest.  The existing drainage system was then be submitted to Welsh Water for adoption by the end of 2009.

§               The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager raised no objection subject to minor points being clarified with respect to the ground investigation report.

§               Crest had also agreed to provide 20 bird boxes as requested by Hereford Ornithological Club.

§               Natural England and the Council's ecologist had withdrawn their objections as acceptable mitigation and enhancement for Great Crested Newts had been demonstrated.

§               Further letters have been received from Mrs Allen along with two letters from Bill Wiggin MP.  The points made were already covered in the report primarily concerning the existing drainage infrastructure.  Additional points included the impact on barn owls and the need to obtain a licence from Natural England and the whole development should be re-considered including further liaison with the landowners.

§               Holmer Primary School had requested £5000 for improvements to existing educational infrastructure at the school.

§               The Parish Council had requested that the burial ground contribution be given to Holmer burial ground as originally requested rather than Holmer Church burial ground.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The resolution of the existing foul drainage problems and adoption of the system prior to the new drainage infrastructure being installed was welcomed.

§               Subject to Crest and the Children’s and Young Peoples Directorate agreement, some of the agreed education contribution could be directed to Holmer School as requested and the burial ground contribution could be amended as requested by the parish council.

§               Delegated authority was still sought to enable the final amendments to be resolved.

Councillor AM Toon declared a prejudicial interest at the start of the item but, in accordance with the Constitution [Appendix 12, Members Code of Conduct, Part 2, paragraph 12 (2)], wished to exercise the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes before withdrawing from the meeting.  She welcomed the implementation of Eco Homes ‘Very Good’ standard and the mix and tenure of the affordable housing.  The importance of the drainage issues was noted.  Councillor Toon suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Erection of 10 no. one-bedroom flats.

Erection of 10 no. one-bedroom flats.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Amended plans had been received which lowered the height of all three accommodation blocks and removed part of the first floor unit to the rear of 50 East Street.  The design of the fenestration on the two storey unit had also been modified.

§               The Conservation Officer had reviewed the building to be demolished and had confirmed that it may be listed by virtue of attachment to surrounding buildings.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The amendments addressed the Conservation Officer's concerns and assisted in reducing overall height and visual mass when viewed from East Street, ensured that the development was now subservient to the adjacent Methodist Hall and also reduced the impact on the immediate neighbour at 50 East Street.  The plans were considered acceptable.

§               The Conservation Officer considered that the demolition of the single storey building would enhance the setting of the adjoining listed buildings and he therefore maintained no objection subject to the appropriate application being submitted.

§               As the amended plans were considered acceptable, the recommendation detailed in the report was adjusted accordingly.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Cook and Mr. Holden spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Guilor spoke in support of the application.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to an objector’s comment that the adjacent Methodist Hall should not set the precedent for the scale of development on this site.  Councillor Hubbard considered that the scale and mass of the building would be out of keeping with the area and would have a significant impact on Pulling Mews.  He also expressed concerns about the number of units proposed and the degree of overlooking and overshadowing.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on the narrowness of East Street and, given the listed buildings nearby, questioned the contemporary design approach.

Councillor DB Wilcox said that all city centre developments should include provision for the storage of electric mobility vehicles for persons with disabilities.  He also asked how this application differed to a previous application that was refused [CE2007/2166/O refers].  

In response to questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§               there was adequate space to include a store for mobility vehicles;

§               a two storey scheme would still involve a degree of overlooking;

§               re-positioning the development further back on the site would have more impact on 50 East Street; and

§               the previous application would have involved a greater degree of impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

Councillor Wilcox noted that the Conservation Manager - Historic Buildings and the Conservation Advisory Panel had expressed reservations about the design and questioned whether this proposal had fully addressed the reasons for refusal in respect of the previous application.

Councillor WU Attfield commented that the scale and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Proposed garages and workshop together with utility and log store, for the storage of vintage cars linking West Lydiatt dwelling with the disused barn.

Proposed garages and workshop together with utility and log store, for the storage of vintage cars linking West Lydiatt dwelling with the disused barn.

The Central Team Leader reported that the location plan in the agenda was incorrect and the correct plan was displayed at the meeting.  The Central Team Leader gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Perks spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Snadden spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question from Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, the Central Team Leader advised that an existing barn was not considered to have the depth necessary for storing vehicles.  Councillor Greenow drew attention to the comments of Withington Parish Council and the letters of objection; in particular, he noted the potential for noise disturbance, impact on residential amenity and concerns about additional traffic.  He also questioned whether the hours of working on the hobby could be limited.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the application, subject to specific weight being given to recommended condition 3 (F07 Domestic use only of garage).  Other Members also supported the application.

In response to a question about whether a refusal of planning permission could be defended if challenged, the Central Team Leader commented on the domestic nature of the application and said that officers considered the proposal to be acceptable subject to conditions. 

Given the concerns raised by Members, the Central Team Leader suggested additional conditions in respect of noise insulation, a restriction on the use of power-tools on Sundays, and external lighting.  He added that the details could be discussed with the Local Ward Member and the Chairman.

In response to further questions, the Central Team Leader re-iterated that the proposed building would be for the applicant’s personal use only and that any noise nuisance could be addressed through separate legislation.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission).

2.      C03 Matching external materials (general).

3.      F07 Domestic use only of garage.

4.      F08 No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation.

5.      F14 Removal of permitted development rights.

6.      No power tools or machinery shall be used at the premises other than portable tools on a Sunday.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7.      I33 External Lighting

Informatives:

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

2.      N19 Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

Permanent retention of fixed (not rotated) Spanish polytunnels for use in soft fruit growing (table top method), granted temporary planning permission respectively on 29/10/2003 and 09/03/2004, (expiring on 29/10/2009 and 09/02/2011 respectively) under LPA refs: DCCW2003/2321/F & DCW2004/4212/F.

Permanent retention of fixed (not rotated) Spanish polytunnels for use in soft fruit growing (table top method), granted temporary planning permission respectively on 29/10/2003 and 09/03/2004, (expiring on 29/10/2009 and 09/02/2011 respectively) under LPA refs: DCCW2003/2321/F & DCW2004/4212/F.

The Central Team Leader gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               An amended plan, deleting one additional row of polytunnels adjacent to Pyon House and including planting of oak trees along the southern side of the driveway to Pyon House, had been received.

§               The applicant’s agent had confirmed that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA] had been updated from the previous submission and addressed the points raised by the Landscape Officer.

§               Two further letters of support and one further letter of objection had been received.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               Comparison with the submitted plan and the amended plan showed minor variations with the exception of the area adjacent to Pyon House where the second polytunnel was now removed.

§               The updated LVIA did take account of the unregistered park and garden and the landscape mitigation had been updated accordingly.

§               The additional letters of support and objection did not raise any new issues.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Preece spoke on behalf of Pyons Group Parish Council, Ms. O’Neill spoke in objection to the application and Mrs. Phillips and Mr. Aspbury spoke in support of the application.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Local Ward Member, expressed sympathy with the concerns of the owner of Pyon House and the remarks of Withington Parish Council.  He also noted the importance of agriculture to the local economy.  In response to a question, the Central Team Leader advised that a minimum height of 10’ for the oak trees could be achieved. 

Councillor Blackshaw commented on a number of matters raised in the report, the principal points included:

·               It was noted that Unitary Development Plan policies E13 (Agricultural and Forestry Development) and LA4 (Protection of Historic Parks and Gardens) were of particular relevance to this proposal.

·               The scheme for habitat enhancement and management, including the oak tree planting, should address some of the concerns of the Hereford & Worcester Gardens Trust.

·               It was noted that there had been a recent traffic accident on the A4110. 

The Central Team Leader commented on the survey process and said that there was no evidence of any major accidents on the part of the road near to the site.  He also advised that both access routes were used by the operation.

·               Attention was drawn to the comments of the Conservation Manager (Landscape), particularly that ‘the landscape has the capacity to accommodate the degree of change presented by the proposed development’ and that, whilst it could be considered that there might be a conflict with policy LA4, ‘attaching a condition requiring the preparation and delivery of a management strategy, in conjunction with a landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

The next scheduled meeting is 11 November 2009.

11 November 2009