To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs. W.U. Attfield, Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels, R.I. Matthews, Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, Ms. G.A. Powell, Miss F. Short and A.L. Williams.

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

The following declarations of interest were made:-

*Miss C. Wright, Principal Lawyer, declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 26th July, 2006.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26th July, 2006 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

Councillor J.C. Mayson drew attention to the appeal that was upheld in respect of planning application DCCW2005/2947/F – Land Adjacent to Brick House, Bush Bank, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 8PH.  Councillor Mayson explained the history of the site and felt that the appeal decision to allow the retention of the polytunnels was regrettable.  Some Members expressed concerns about the Voluntary Code of Practice for the Use of Polytunnels and the lack of central government direction on the issue.

Siting of temporary living accommodation for agricultural workers.

Siting of temporary living accommodation for agricultural workers.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt and summarised the contents of the following:

·       An agricultural appraisal prepared by Kernan Countryside Consultants on behalf of local residents;

·       A response to the above appraisal by the applicant’s agent;

·       A further letter of objection from Mrs. Drury; and

·       Further correspondence from DPDS Consulting on behalf of local residents.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, acknowledged the expertise and depth of the cases put forward by both the supporters and the objectors.  On balance, Councillor Thomas felt that imaginative and dynamic agricultural enterprises should be supported and that temporary planning permission should be granted in this instance.  He felt that the business would be successful and noted the personal and financial commitment of the applicants to the enterprise.

A number of Members spoke about the importance of diversity in the agricultural sector and welcomed the potential employment and economic benefits of the proposal.  It was noted that a temporary permission was sought and this would not set a precedent or prejudice any decisions about the use of the site in the future.

Councillor P.J. Edwards supported the application but felt that, if planning permission was granted, the two caravans already on the site should be removed and the proposed chalet style mobile home should be sited nearer to the site entrance in order to minimise visual impact.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act would permit a seasonal caravan for use by seasonal workers but the other could be removed upon delivery of the chalet style mobile home.

Some Members did not feel that the case for a functional presence on site or in the locality at most times had been proven and could not support the application.

The Local Ward Member acknowledged the need to mitigate noise pollution from the site, particularly to protect the amenity of the occupiers of Yewtree Cottage which was adjacent to the site.  The Principal Planning Officer suggested that the Local Ward Member and the Chairman be consulted about the conditions felt to be necessary.

RESOLVED: That

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

1.       The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the amended plan received by the local planning authority on 10th July, 2006.

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

2.       Prior to the siting of the mobile home hereby permitted the external dimensions and details or samples of the materials to be used externally on walls and roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Amendment to application CE2005/3706/RM - Replacement of two storey 'Hereford' house type with three storey 'Middleham' house type (Retrospective).

Amendment to application CE2005/3706/RM - Replacement of two storey 'Hereford' house type with three storey 'Middleham' house type (Retrospective).

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of two additional letters of objection.

Councillor R. Preece, a Local Ward Member, felt that the replacement of a two storey house type with a three storey house type was unacceptable and felt it regrettable that this application was retrospective.  He said that the application should be refused due to its overbearing impact on adjoining properties and its impact on residential amenity.

Councillor A.C.R. Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the development was over intensive.  He commented on the significant traffic congestion problems on the local road network and felt that further development would exacerbate this situation.  He expressed strong concerns about the retrospective nature of the application and was disappointed that the developer had not ceased work on the building given that it was a clear breach of the planning permission granted.  He also drew attention to the objections of Hereford City Council.  He commented that the Local Ward Members disagreed with the assertion in the report that ‘…the revised design of the dwelling will not appear unduly prominent in the locality or within the street scene…’ (paragraph 6.2) but concurred that residents would ‘…have the feeling that their privacy is being invaded by existing and proposed dwellings…’ (paragraph 6.5).

Some Members expressed dismay at the retrospective nature of the application, commented on the road congestion that was likely to result from development sites in the area, and felt that the development had a detrimental impact on the locality.  A number of reasons for refusal were suggested; detailed in the resolution below.

Counter arguments were also made having regard to the window-to-window relationships, the lack of objection from the Traffic Manager and the similarity of the development to the adjacent buildings which had the benefit of planning permission.

A number of Members emphasised the impact of the three storey building on the street scene and maintained that it was an unacceptable form of development.  In response, the Development Control Manager did not feel it likely that the arguments with regard to overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact could be sustained on appeal but acknowledged that the perceived impact on the street scene was also a material planning consideration in this instance.

RESOLVED: That

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

1.            Overbearing impact

2.            Impact on residential amenity

3.            Over intensive development

4.            Impact on 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Demolition of existing car showroom premises and erection of 5 one bedroom and 3 two bedroom residential dwelling apartments.

Demolition of existing car showroom premises and erection of 5 one bedroom and 3 two bedroom residential dwelling apartments.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of amended plans which showed a small area of communal garden and revised access with pedestrian rather than vehicle priority.

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as Local Ward Member, was disappointed that proposals for this and other development sites in the area had not been brought forward as a whole package.  He drew attention to the comments made by the proprietor of The Spinning Dog Brewery and noted that the future occupiers of the apartments would have to expect odour and noise nuisance from the Brewery and The Victory Public House.  In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the surface water drainage arrangements.

Some Members expressed concerns about the potential increase in traffic congestion on Ledbury Road and St. Owen’s Street that would be generated by forthcoming developments in the area.  The Development Control Manager advised that the proposed use was likely to generate less traffic than the existing use.

A number of Members expressed concerns about the design of the proposed buildings.  The Principal Planning Officer advised the Sub-Committee that the existing use, as a car display area, was a material consideration and it was considered that this proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the area.  The Development Control Manager added that the use of good quality materials was essential if this was to be the final form of the development.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the number of units proposed fell below the threshold for affordable housing requirements.

RESOLVED:

That Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any additional 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.       E01 (Restriction on hours of working).

          Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

5.       E02 (Restriction on hours of delivery).

          Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

6.       F01 (Scheme of noise attenuating measures).

          Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

7.       Prior to the commencement of development, a Method Statement and Risk Assessment for the safe decomtamination and if necessary, removal of the underground tanks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Tanks shall be made safe or removed in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of any other works on site.

          Reason: In the interests and protection of the environment and harm to human health and Public Health Act 1961 and Health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Removal of Planning Condition 3 of Planning Permission DCCE2004/0568/F - Requiring north facing windows to be glazed with obscured glass and permanently fixed shut.

Removal of Planning Condition 3 of Planning Permission DCCE2004/0568/F - Requiring north facing windows to be glazed with obscured glass and permanently fixed shut.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of the comments of the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager (no objections).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Hutchinson spoke against the application.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, acknowledged the concerns of the objector and the need to mitigate the impact of the development.  He suggested additional conditions in respect of landscaping and screening in order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant’s agent had indicated that landscaping could be improved and that efforts were being made to reduce potential noise from the sport annex.

A number of Members supported the application subject to the conditions suggested by the Local Ward Member and any other conditions considered necessary by Officers.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is granted, with an amended description to vary Condition 3 only, subject to the following conditions and any further conditions felt to be necessary by Officers :

1.            Within 2 months of the date of this permission full details of all the first floor windows in the north west facing elevation, including the nature of their restricted opening mechanism, shall be submitted to an agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The windows shall then be retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details and not replaced or altered unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality

2.            The use of the three principal rooms identified in the approved plan shall be retained for non-practical teaching purposes the specific type of which shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority within 2 months of the date of this permission and/or staff room office use only.

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality

3.            The permission hereby granted is an amendment to Condition 3 attached to planning permission DCCE2004/0568/F and, otherwise than is expressly altered by this permission, the conditions attached thereto remain.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

4.      None of the existing trees to the north of the site (other than those specifically shown to be removed on the approved drawings) shall be removed, destroyed, felled, lopped or pruned without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority.

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

5.      Within 6 months of the date of this permission a scheme of landscaping for the boundary to the north of the site, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and any necessary tree surgery shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.  All proposed planting shall be clearly described with species, sizes and planting numbers.

         Reason: In order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Variation of Condition 3 Planning Permission CE2004/4148/F.  To extend opening hours.

Variation of Condition 3 Planning Permission CE2004/4148/F.  To extend opening hours.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of a petition signed by 161 people in support of the proposal.  He also reported that recommended condition 2 should refer to ‘9.45pm’ and not ‘9.45am’ as shown in the report.

Councillor W.J. Walling, a Local Ward Member, commented that he opposed the original application but did not feel that this variation would add significantly to the impact of the business on the locality.

Councillor Mrs. E.A. Taylor, also a Local Ward Member, advised that she had visited the premises and noted that, subject to proper maintenance and inspection, odour and noise nuisance should remain within permitted limits.  It was felt that the revised hours should not have a significant impact on the existing parking situation.

In response to a question from Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, the other Local Ward Member, the Senior Planning Officer clarified the permitted use of the site as a takeaway fish and chip shop (Use Class A5).

A number of Members spoke in support of the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1,      A01 (Time limit for commencement).

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

2.      The use hereby permitted shall only be open to customers between 4.45pm and 9.45pm on Mondays; 12.15pm and 9.45pm Tuesday to Fridays; 12.00pm and 9.45pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays.

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

3.      The permission hereby granted is an amendment to planning permission DCCE2004/4168/F and, otherwise than is expressly altered by this permission, the conditions attached thereto remain.

         Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Informatives:

1.      N03 (Adjoining property rights).

2.      N15 (Reasons for the grant of permission).

Erection of bungalow.

Erection of bungalow.

The Senior Planning Officer suggested an amendment to the recommendation, as the consultation period had not yet ended.  It was reported that Hereford City Council would not be in a position to comment on the proposal until the following day.  It was also reported that a plan showing revised access and parking arrangement had been received but the Traffic Manager had not yet had the opportunity to assess the amended scheme.

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

In response to a question from the Chairman arising from a comment made by a speaker, the Senior Planning Officer clarified the notification process and confirmed that the correct certificates had been served.  He added that civil covenants did not restrict the determination of planning applications, even though such covenants might prevent development from actually going ahead.

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, felt that consideration of the application should be deferred until the response of the Traffic Manager had been received and the consultation period had elapsed.  Officers suggested that the Sub-Committee could authorise Officers to approve the application subject to the resolution of any outstanding matters.  However, a number of Members felt that consideration of the application should be deferred until the next meeting of the Sub-Committee given the outstanding issues.  It was also felt that deferral would also provide an opportunity to revisit the design and setting of the proposal.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred.

Conversion to 4 dwellings in lieu of 2 dwellings as approved 25/08/04 application no. DCCW2004/1701/F.

Conversion to 4 dwellings in lieu of 2 dwellings as approved 25/08/04 application no. DCCW2004/1701/F.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Vaughan spoke on behalf of Pyons Group Parish Council and Mr. Davey spoke in support of the application.

Councillor J.C. Mayson, the Local Ward Member, felt that the proposal was over-intensive and the parking arrangements could compromise highway safety.

Some Members noted that the Traffic Manager had no objection to the application and they commented that the provision of four two-bedroom units would make the units more affordable.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that there was sufficient parking to serve the proposed development and, as the conversion would still result in eight bedrooms (two four-bedroom units to four two-bedroom units), it was not considered that the proposal would represent an over development of the site.

A number of Members expressed concerns about the parking arrangements but noted that, in the absence of any objections from the Traffic Manager, Officers did not feel that these concerns could not be substantiated as grounds for refusal.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a condition in relation to standard hours of operation would be included in any planning permission granted.

Councillor Mayson drew attention to the comments made in the representations section of the report and felt that highway safety was an important consideration.

Given the concerns raised, the Sub-Committee agreed that a site inspection should be held.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application 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.

Erection of 5 no. new apartments to comprise 3 no. 2 bed and 2 no. 1 bed dwellings.

Erection of 5 no. new apartments to comprise 3 no. 2 bed and 2 no. 1 bed dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of comments from the Conservation Manager.

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

Councillor Mrs. E.M. Bew, a Local Ward Member, felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application 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 replacement floodlight column with new floodlight incorporating an O2 Installation antenna.

Proposed replacement floodlight column with new floodlight incorporating an O2 Installation antenna.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of petitions opposing the application but these did not specify the nature of the objections raised.

In response to a Member’s suggestion that the application be deferred for further information, the Development Control Manager advised that the timescale with this application was such that any delay beyond the expiry date of 17th September, 2006 would result in the application being approved by default.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Knights spoke against the application and Mr. Wellman spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the position of the replacement floodlight could be controlled through the conditions on the original permission for floodlighting at the site.

A number of Members sympathised with the concerns of local residents but noted that Officers were satisfied that the issue of public safety had been properly addressed in selecting the proposed site.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the monopole mast would not be suitable for mast sharing.  The Development Control Manager clarified the position with regard to the Stewart Report and subsequent planning guidance on telecommunications.

RESOLVED:

That Prior Approval is granted.

The next scheduled meeting is Monday 25th September, 2006 at 2.00 p.m.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting was to be held on Monday 25th September, 2006 at 2.00 p.m..

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman advised that this was likely to be the last Central Area Planning Sub-Committee attended by Miss C. Wright, Principal Lawyer.  He thanked Miss Wright for her professional support and advice, both with the former Hereford City Council and latterly with Herefordshire Council.  The rest of the Sub-Committee endorsed the Chairman’s comments and wished Miss Wright well for the future.