To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs. W.U. Attfield, Mrs. E.M. Bew, Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels, P.J. Edwards and A.L. Williams.

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

The following declarations of interests were made:

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Mrs. S.J. Robertson	Agenda Item 9, Minute 139 DCCE2005/3842/F 53 Hampton Park Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1TJ	Declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.

 

Mr. K. Bishop, Principal Planning Officer, declared personal interests in respect of Agenda Items 9 and 12, Minutes 139 and 142 and left the meeting for the duration of these items.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th January, 2006.

RESOLVED:

 

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th January, 2006 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 noted details of the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 13 apartments.

[A] Demolition of existing building and erection of 13 apartments and

[B] Demolition of building and construction of 13 apartments.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that, in response to the identified need for enhanced facilities at Lord Scudamore School, the applicant had agreed to contribute £2,000 for the two, two-bed units.  Therefore, the recommendation was amended in order to authorise Officers to issue planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement.  The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of correspondence from the Environment Agency (no objections subject to conditions), Highways and Transportation (no objections subject to conditions), Conservation (no objections) and the Conservation Advisory Panel (no objections).

 

Councillor Miss. F. Short, a Local Ward Member, questioned the market for the large numbers of flats being built in Hereford but noted that this proposal would have benefits in terms of the setting back of the building and the enhancement of the street scene.

 

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews noted that Lexton House was in a dilapidated state and the improvements and contributions proposed would have a positive impact.  However, she did express concern about the increasing levels of traffic at the junction of Friars Street and Whitecross Road and felt that this should be taken into account for future proposals in the area.

 

Councillor A.M. Toon expressed concerns about the limited amount of parking proposed.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the issue had been fully assessed by Highways and Transportation and the reduced level of parking was considered acceptable given the location of the site near to the city centre.

 

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes noted the shortage of appropriate housing for young professionals and key workers.

 

Some Members felt that improvements should be made to the ‘blank’ southern elevation of the design.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that this elevation would be enhanced through decorative brick treatment.

 

In response to a number of comments by Members about inadequate parking provision, the Development Control Manager noted the proximity of the city centre and commented that Planning Policy Guidance (PPG3) allowed for reduced levels of parking in such locations.  He felt that, given the lack of existing parking provision, it would be difficult to justify a refusal of planning permission on appeal in this instance.

 

RESOLVED:

 

In respect of DCCW2005/4113/F:

 

1 -        The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable an education contribution of £2000 and any additional matters and terms as he considers appropriate.

 

2 -        Upon completion of the aforementioned obligation that the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Proposed 3-storey residential unit comprising of 15 no. flats.

Proposed 3-storey residential unit comprising of 15 no. flats.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of amended plans.  He advised that the applicant had agreed to increase the contribution towards identified educational needs to £12,000; representing £1,000 for twelve units (three had not been counted given the three existing dwellings on the site).  He also reported the receipt of comments from the Environment Agency (no objections) and a letter of objection from a local resident.  It was noted that references in the report to the ‘County Secretary and Solicitor’ should be changed to ‘Legal Practice Manager’.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Billingham, Mrs. Brown and Mr. Boden spoke against the application.

 

In response to comments by the speakers, the Principal Planning Officer advised that moving the building line back would result in reduced parking to the rear.

 

Councillor Miss F. Short, a Local Ward Member, felt that the limited amount of proposed parking was unacceptable and would result in further congestion problems in the area.  She also felt that the scale and design of the proposal was over-intensive.

 

The Development Control Manager acknowledged that the level of parking provision was less than the previous item but noted that Highways and Transportation had not raised any objections, hence the recommendation of approval.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox felt that the amount of parking was inadequate and felt that a refusal of planning permission on this basis was defensible.  He expressed concern about the amount of weight given to PPG3 given that the public transport situation in Herefordshire was quite different to that found in large urban conurbations.

 

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews concurred that the parking was inadequate and also felt that the design was monolithic and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

 

A number of Members spoke against the proposal and further comments were made about the need to interpret PPG3 in the context of the specific circumstances found in Herefordshire.

 

RESOLVED:

 

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

 

1.  Lack of parking;

2.  Highway/transport problems; and

3.  Design is overwhelming and does not sit comfortably in the street scene.

 

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

 

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

Proposed detached bungalow.

Proposed detached bungalow.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of an amended site plan but advised that, as further consultation was necessary, the recommendation remained the same as detailed in the report.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Franzen and Mr. Starling spoke against the application.

 

The Principal Planning Officer commented that many of the concerns of objectors would be addressed through the conditions.  In particular, he drew attention to condition 4 regarding the retention of trees/hedgerows and condition 10 regarding the removal of permitted development rights.  He commented that a bungalow with ground floor accommodation only would protect the character of the area.  It was noted that the drainage pipe that crossed the application site was a civil matter and was not a valid planning reason for refusal.  However, the applicant considered that the dwelling could be constructed without interfering with the drain.

 

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, felt that the scale of the dwelling was appropriate and should not have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.  Councillor W.J. Walling, also a Local Ward Member, commented that he had concerns about the application initially but concluded that there was adequate room for a bungalow; he felt that no upward extension should be permitted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period and an accurate site plan being provided, the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve 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.         B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

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

 

4.         G09 (Retention of trees/hedgerows).

 

            Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

 

5.         H05 (Access gates).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

6.         H06 (Vehicular access construction).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

7.         H09 (Driveway gradient).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

8.         H03 (Visibility splays).

 

            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.       E16 (Removal of permitted development rights)

 

            Reason: To enable the local planning authority to maintain control of  any future developments within the curtilage in the interests of residential amenity and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

11.       Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site.

 

            Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

 

12.       No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system.

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Proposed new dwelling.

Proposed new dwelling.

 

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, a Local Ward Member, felt that this proposal was well thought out and supported the application.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

            Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

2.         A09 (Amended plans).

 

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

 

3.         B01 (Samples of external materials).

 

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

 

4.         E08 (Domestic use only of garage).

 

            Reason: To ensure that the garage is used only for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

6.         E16 (Removal of permitted development rights).

 

            Reason: Due to the restrictive nature of the application site and the relationship of the proposed property to the  neighbouring dwellings.

 

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

 

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

 

8.         F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

 

            Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

9.         G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11.       G09 (Retention of trees/hedgerows).

 

            Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

 

12.       G33 (Details of walls/fences (outline permission)).

 

            Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity.

 

13.       H05 (Access gates).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

14.       H06 (Vehicular access construction).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

15.       H09 (Driveway gradient).

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site.

 

            Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

 

18.       No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system.

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

 

19.       No land drainage run-off will be permitted, either directly or indirectly, to discharge into the public sewerage system.

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

 

Informatives:

 

1.         HN01 - Mud on highway.

 

2.         HN05 - Works within the highway.

 

3.         HN10 - No drainage to discharge to highway.

 

4.         N03 - Adjoining property rights.

 

5.         N11A - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – Birds.

 

6.         N11B - Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Conservation (Nat. Habitats & C.) Regs 1994 – Bats.

 

7.         N16 - Welsh Water Informative.

 

8.         N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission.

Proposed house and detached garage.

Proposed house and detached garage.

 

Councillors W.J. Walling and Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, Local Ward Members, felt that the scale of the proposal was appropriate and supported the application.

 

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 (Samples of external materials).

 

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

 

3.         E08 (Domestic use only of garage).

 

            Reason: To ensure that the garage is used only for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.         E19 (Obscure glazing to windows).

 

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

 

7.         E01 (Restriction on hours of working).

 

            Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

 

8.         G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

 

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

 

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.            Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, prior to the commencement of development plans showing the side and rear elevations of the proposed detached double garage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

 

            Reason: In the interests of securing an acceptable form of development.

 

11.       W01 (Foul/surface water drainage).

 

            Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

 

12.       W02 (No surface water to connect to public system).

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

 

13.       W03 (No drainage run-off to public system).

 

            Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

 

Informatives:

 

1.         N03 - Adjoining property rights.

 

2.         HN01 - Mud on highway.

 

3.         HN05 - Works within the highway.

 

4.         N16 - Welsh Water Informative.

 

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

Erection of a detached three bedroom bungalow.

Erection of a detached three bedroom bungalow.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of correspondence from the Environment Agency (no objections) and Welsh Water (no comment due to the private drainage arrangements).

 

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, commented that she had given the proposal considerable thought and felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.  Other Members supported this suggestion.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Quayle had registered to speak against the application but was not present at the meeting.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That consideration of planning application DCCE2005/4167/F be deferred for a site inspection for the following reasons:

·             The character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration;

·             A judgement is required on visual impact; and

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

Proposed 2, 3 and 5 bedroom mixed residential development for 21 dwellings with associated accesses and garaging.

Proposed 2, 3 and 5 bedroom mixed residential development for 21 dwellings with associated accesses and garaging.

 

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to page 59 of the report and advised that the breakdown of the numbers of dwellings should refer to ten three-bed units and not eleven.  He also advised that Lower Bullingham Parish Council’s comments on page 61 should refer to ‘piecemeal’ and not ‘peacefull’ approach.  It was reported that amended plans had been received but, as further consultation was necessary, the recommendation remained that of delegation to officers.

 

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, a Local Ward Member, noted the concerns of Hereford City Council and concurred with Lower Bullingham Parish Council that the piecemeal approach was regrettable.  He felt that the traffic problems in the vicinity would be exacerbated by this development but it was noted that the principle of development had been established as part of the ‘masterplan’ for the site.

 

A number of Members noted that the final number of houses on the Bradbury Lines site would be substantially more than that originally proposed.  Some Members felt that later phases of development should have much higher proportions of affordable housing.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that some 445 houses had been approved to date out of the 500 envisaged in the masterplan.  Some Members commented on other developments where a piecemeal approach to development had resulted in infrastructure problems.

 

In response to the suggestion that there should be more open space, the Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the fact that there would be some 2.5 hectares of mixed use open space for the whole development and would be no more than 100m from this application site.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon, the Principal Lawyer (Planning, Environment and Transport) advised that the restriction of certain types of vehicles from parking in the vicinity could not be addressed through planning conditions.  She added that such restrictions were sometimes included as covenants by the developer on new properties but these were an entirely civil matter.  The Development Control Manager added that enforcement action would only be an issue if it involved a blatantly commercial use at a residential dwelling, e.g. ice cream vans with functioning refrigeration units.

 

RESOLVED:

 

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions/notes and any additional conditions/notes considered necessary by Officers.

 

1.         E17 (No windows in side elevation of extension) (southern elevation of plots 12, 13, 18 and 21).

 

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

 

Informatives:

 

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

 

2.         The applicant's attention is drawn to the Conditions attached to Outline Planning Permission reference CE2001/2757/O which require further details to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of the development.

 

3.         N02 - Section 106 Obligation.

 

4.         The applicant is advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Demolition of office extension and erection of 8 no. one-bedroom flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats.

Demolition of office extension and erection of 8 no. one-bedroom flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the archaeological evaluation was in hand and that amended plans had been provided which identified cycle storage, although discussions regarding a wall were ongoing.  It was also reported that an application for Conservation Area consent had now been submitted and information had been received to confirm that the occupants of the existing building on the site could be relocated within Berrows House.  The Principal Planning Officer noted issues with regard to the residents’ parking scheme and commented that residents may not be eligible for residents’ parking permits.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Jamieson had registered to speak in support of the application but decided not to do so at the meeting.

 

Councillor D.B. Wilcox acknowledged the original nature of the design but felt that the lack of parking was not satisfactory.  He felt it unrealistic to expect occupiers, and visitors, not to have cars and that the application should be refused unless some element of off-street parking was provided.

 

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon questioned whether parking could be provided under the building.  In response, the Development Control Manager commented that the design could be seriously compromised if parking was required.  Furthermore, underground parking would not be acceptable in archaeological terms.  It was noted that officers considered the design to be exceptional, hence the strong recommendation in favour of approval.

 

The quality of the design was commented on by a number of Members, the majority of whom felt that it was innovative and would fit in well with the historic and modern buildings in the vicinity.  On balance, it was felt that the lack of parking was acceptable given the proximity of public transport links and the fact that the proposal represented an imaginative use of a constrained site.

 

In response to a suggestion by Councillor Mrs. E.A. Taylor, the Principal Lawyer (Planning, Environment and Transport) advised that a recent circular set out the conditions for a Section 106 Agreement.

 

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as Local Ward Member, thanked Members for the useful discussion.  He noted that the planning system was limited in what it could do regarding access to residents’ parking permits but hoped that potential occupiers took on board the car free nature of the development.  He supported the design approach and welcomed the developer contributions that had been identified.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)            Subject to the applicants providing an appropriate archaeological evaluation and the County Archaeologist raising no objection following receipt and assessment of this evaluation by 1 March 2006;

 

2)            Subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans identifying revision to the boundary treatment and the provision of secure cycle storage by 1st March 2006; and

 

3)            Subject to the applicant providing a suitably completed and signed Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by 1 March 2006 in accordance with the Heads of Terms set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Bungalow and parking spaces.

Bungalow and parking spaces.

 

Councillor J.G.S. Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, felt that this proposal would fit in well and represented an acceptable form of infill development.  He noted that Marden Parish Council had no objection, subject to safe highways access.

 

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.         B02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

 

            Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building.

 

4.            Before any other works hereby approved are commenced, the access into the application site shall be so constructed, which will include clear visibility from a point 0.6 metres above the level of the adjoining carriageway over the length of the site frontage in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Nothing shall be planted, erected and/or allowed to grow on the area of land so formed, which would obstruct the visibility described above.

 

            Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

Informative:

 

1.         N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission.

The next scheduled meeting is 8th March, 2006.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting was Wednesday 8th March, 2006.