To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors D.J. Fleet, 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:-

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18th October, 2006.

The Minutes of the last meeting were received.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18th October, 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 received an information report about the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the central area.

RESOLVED:            That the report be noted.

For:            Herefordshire Housing Association, per Mr D.D. Davis, 2 St. Oswald's Road, Worcester, WR1 1HZ

Ward: Central

5 no. 1 bedroom supported living units.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter of objection.  He also reported an additional letter of support from the applicant’s agent, confirming that a pedestrian access to Union Walk could be provided as part of the scheme.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Boucher spoke against the application and Mr. Shirley spoke in support of the application.

In response to comments about the loss of public open space, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposed planning obligation agreement would require the developer to contribute £2,500 towards the ‘Portfields’ play area / open space.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews reported the comments of Councillor D.J. Fleet, the Local Ward Member.  Whilst the need for supported living units was acknowledged, concerns were expressed about the narrowness of the access, the potential loss of pathway and the impact of construction traffic.  Attention was drawn to the fact that the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) [UDP] had designated the application site as a protected public space.  Councillor Mrs. Andrews said that, although the demand for such development was recognised, the access was unacceptable and the application should be refused.

A number of Members commented on the recreational and amenity value of public open spaces and the need to safeguard them, particularly given the density of modern housing developments.  It was not considered that the proposed contribution towards alternative provision was sufficient to offset the loss of the space.  Therefore, it was felt that the application should be refused as it would be contrary to Policy RST4 (Safeguarding existing recreational open space) of the UDP.  Further concerns were also expressed about the access arrangements.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1. The proposed development will result in the loss, without appropriate alternative provision, of an area of protected open space.  The proposal is therefore contrary to PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation and Herefordshire Unitary Development (Revised Deposit Draft) Policies DR2, H13 and RST4.

2. The access road (Andrews Close) and the associated driveway that provide access to the site are considered unsuitable to serve the proposed residential development and would lead to unacceptable parking and manoeuvring on the highway, to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety.  The proposal is therefore contrary to PPG13: Transport and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) Policies S2, DR1 and T8.

(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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

For:      Strand Homes Ltd, per Mr P H Tufnell, Tufnell Town & Country Planning, Waverley Studio, Gloucester Road, Hartpury, Gloucester, GL19 3BG

Ward: Hagley

Erection of a terrace of 3 cottages and provision of additional parking area.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that two additional parking spaces had been incorporated into the scheme and an additional condition was recommended in respect of foul drainage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of Bartestree Parish Council.

Councillor R.M. Wilson, the Local Ward Member, expressed concerns about a number of matters, including:

·             he was appalled at the storage of materials on the nearby burial ground and the breach in a listed wall and said that they should be restored to their previous condition as a matter of urgency;

·             he felt that the current scheme could be considered overdevelopment as it would result in a total of 66 dwellings on the site (the original applications - CE2000/1143/F and CE2000/1146/L - sought the construction of 17 mews cottages and 23 dwellings within the Convent buildings);

·             he felt that the proposal would detract from Bartestree Convent, particularly as it would restrict views towards the Listed Buildings;

·             referring to a number of policies in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) [the UDP], he felt that the density of development was too high, that additional housing in this location would not meet policy requirements and the site was outside the village envelope;

·             he commented that this area could be used to meet open space requirements;

·             he commented that the sewage system might not be able to accommodate three more dwellings; and

·             he noted that a number of planning obligations had been discharged following amendments to the scheme and suggested that the retention of this area could provide some local amenity benefits as a public open space.

Councillor Wilson felt that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would detract from the Listed Building and would represent and over-intensive form of development in this sensitive location.

In response to the concerns of Members, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: potential enforcement matters were being investigated and would be pursued appropriately; a sub area of the Bartestree Settlement Boundary now surrounded the Convent in the UDP; Planning Policy Guidance and the UDP sought densities above 30 dwellings per hectare; and a reason for refusal based on loss of open space might be difficult to sustain given the approved use of the land for parking spaces.

A number of Members concurred with the Local Ward Member that this further development would have a detrimental impact on the setting and surroundings of the Listed Buildings.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The proposed development would by reason of its siting and scale result in the loss of an additional element of open space and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

For:      Border Oak Design & Construction Ltd, Kingsland Sawmills,   Kingsland,  Leominster,  Herefordshire, HR6 9SF

Ward: Wormsley Ridge

Erection of detached house and ancillary garage and formation of new vehicular access.

Councillor J.C. Mayson, the Local Ward Member, noted that Wellington Parish Council had objections to the application and said that he shared the concerns raised.  Councillor Mayson noted that the Traffic Manager recommended conditions but he felt that the access arrangements would result in unacceptable risks to highway safety.  He also felt that the development would have a detrimental visual impact on the area.

A number of Members commented on the narrowness of the carriageway and felt that the proposed access arrangements would comprise highway safety.  Furthermore, to provide the access and accommodate the visibility splays required, a length of boundary hedge would need to be removed but it was felt that this would have a significant impact on the character and setting of the rural lane.  It was also felt that the elevated nature of the site would mean that the development would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

The Development Control Manager commented that the Traffic Manager was satisfied with the application but noted that Members’ concerns about the impact of the removal of the hedgerow was a material planning consideration.  Given the size of the application site, he did not feel that refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment or density could be sustained. 

In response to a comment about the impact on an adjacent dwelling, the Central Team Leader clarified the orientation of the proposal and the distances between nearby buildings.

Some Members felt that more suitable access might be achieved via the existing access to Jabrin House.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The proposal would necessitate the removal of a large section of hedgerow along this sunken lane which in itself would have a detrimental visual impact on its character and appearance.  Furthermore the opening up of the site to form the access, by reason of its prominent and elevated nature, coupled with the size and scale of the proposed dwelling would detract from the attractive open and rural character of the site and surroundings.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DR1, H4 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

2.      The proposal, in the absence of the removal of the roadside hedgerow would fail to provide a safe and adequate means of access to the site and would therefore be contrary to Policies DR1 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

(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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

For:      C D Jones, 35 Jubilee Close, Deer Park, Ledbury, Herefordshire, HR8 2XA

Ward: Backbury

Change of use for parking of 2 HGVs and storage of building materials (retrospective).

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, noted that the land was being used for a variety of purposes and that “…the existing yard itself is very utilitarian and is not visually attractive but in view of its use in connection with the agricultural land it would not in itself require planning permission” (paragraph 6.4 of the report).  Councillor Mrs. Pemberton noted the concerns of the objector but felt that, given the specific application before the Sub-Committee and the conditions proposed, there were no material planning reasons to warrant refusal of the application.

In response to points made by Members, the Development Control Manager commented that the retrospective nature of the application provided an opportunity to manage the use through conditions and that potential enforcement issues relating to other matters would be investigated.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      E26 (Cessation of personal/time limited permission).

Reason: The nature of the development is such that it is only considered acceptable in this location having regard to the applicant's special circumstances.

2.      Within one month of the date of this permission, a written scheme for physically marking out the boundaries of the two areas of land on which the development is hereby permitted, outlined in red and annotated "A" and "B" on the plan referenced DUR1 attached to this permission, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.  The scheme shall be implemented as approved within two months of this permission.

Reason: To define the areas of land for which permission for change of use is granted for the avoidance of doubt, in accordance with Malvern Hills District Local Plan Policy LAN4 and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) Policy LA6.

3.      No waste or other materials, vehicles, plant or machinery arising from or used specifically in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be deposited or stored outside the areas identified by Condition 2 above, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area in accordance with Hereford and Worcester County Structure Plan Policy CTC2, Malvern Hills District Local Plan Policy LAN3 and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) Policy DR2.

4.      E05 (Restriction on hours of use (industrial)).

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

5.      E06 (Restriction on use).

Reason: The local planning authority wish to control the specific use of the land/premises, in the interest of local amenity.

6.    Stockpiles of stored materials shall not exceed 4 metres in height.

Reason: In the interests of safety and visual amenity and to limit the quantity of materials to be stored at the site, in accordance with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) Policy W1.

7.      No burning or incineration shall take place within the area the subject of this permission.

Reason: To safeguard local amenity and prevent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

For:      Mr D Sockett, per Mr P T Gill, 13 Vaughan Street, Hereford, HR1 2HD

Ward: Central

Development of 8 nos self contained flats from existing multi-occupancy dwelling - extension and rebuilding of rear annex.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended an additional informative note to highlight the fact that potential occupiers may not be entitled to residents’ parking permits.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Scott spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews reported the comments of Councillor D.J. Fleet, the Local Ward Member.  It was reported that Councillor Fleet had no objections to the application in principle but felt that the parking in the area was extremely problematic and that the development should be excluded from the residents’ parking scheme.  The Central Team Leader commented that the restriction of parking permits could not be required as a condition on a planning permission as the parking schemes were covered by other legislation, hence the recommended informative note to draw attention to the parking situation.

Councillor P.J. Edward felt it essential that condition F39 (Scheme of refuse storage) be included in any planning permission granted in the interests of the amenity of the area.

A number of Members noted that the property was currently arranged as a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) with nine rooms with shared facilities and felt that the proposed conversion to eight self contained flats would be an improvement.  It was also noted that, as the property could accommodate up to nine independent persons currently, it was possible that the demand for parking could decrease as a result of the proposed re-development.

However, other Members felt that the parking problems would be exacerbated by the proposal and that it represented an over-intensive form of development.  In particular, attention was drawn to Policy H17 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) which stated that the sub-division of houses will be permitted provided that adequate and appropriate car parking and access was available.  It was not felt that this proposal was acceptable given this policy consideration.  The objections of the Conservation Advisory Panel were also noted.

The Central Team Leader commented on the existing lawful use of the building and emphasised the sustainability of this location, near to the city centre and public transport links.  In response to a comment about lack of amenity space, he drew attention to the close proximity of the Castle Green and the King George’s Playing Field.  He also commented that the proportions of the proposed rear extension were similar to typical domestic extensions.

Some Members maintained that the parking situation was untenable.  A comment was made that the existing state of the building was not a significant consideration given that the HMO legislation could be used to require works to be undertaken to the building.  It was also commented that, given the dimensions of the proposed self-contained units, the re-development would not substantially improve the standard of accommodation.

The Development Control Manager reminded the Sub-Committee that neither the Conservation Manager nor the Traffic Manager had objections to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

For:      Mr & Mrs M Soble, Paul Smith Associates, 19 St Martins Street, Hereford, HR2 7RD

Ward: Hollington

Siting of two mobile homes to be occupied by seasonal agricultural workers only.

The Central Team Leader reported the receipt of nine additional letters of objection and summarised the contents of the letters.  He also reported the receipt of correspondence from the applicant’s agent; the applicant sought to screen the mobile homes with landscaping rather than re-paint them, requested that a five rather than three year permission be granted and requested that permitted development rights not be removed.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Soble spoke in support of the application.

The Legal Practice Manager briefly explained the relevant legislation and the purpose of removing permitted development rights.  The Central Team Leader commented on the need to prevent the further proliferation of mobile homes in this sensitive landscape area without prior permission from the Local Planning Authority and confirmed that occupation of the approved units by seasonal agricultural workers would be between the months of April and October only.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, commented that the conditions recommended by Officers were reasonable and felt that the applicant would undertake all appropriate action to screen the mobile homes adequately.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton felt that some of the comments made in letters of objection about gypsy/traveller sites were deplorable.

RESOLVED:

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approved the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.      E23 (Temporary permission and reinstatement of land (mobile home/caravan)).

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to give further consideration to the acceptability of the proposed use in line with other temporary planning permission approved at the holding.

2.      F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal).

Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided.

3.      E28 (Occupation by seasonal agricultural worker between the months of April and October only).

Reason: It would be contrary to Development Plan policies to grant planning permission for a dwelling in this location except to meet the expressed case of agricultural need.

4.      B11 (Details of external finish).

Reason: In order to minimise the impact of the mobile homes on the visual amenity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

5.      E15 (Removal of permitted development rights).

Reason: To prevent the further proliferation of mobile homes in order to safeguard the visual amenity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Informatives:

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

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

For:      Mr. & Mrs. Connor per Mrs. Clayton, Penelope Clayton Architectural Drawing, 2 Sunshine Close, Ledbury, Herefordshire, HR8 2DZ

Ward: Burghill, Holmer & Lyde

To construct new annexe dwelling attached to the main dwelling and detached garage.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of the comments of Welsh Water (no objection in principle, subject to a standard condition in the interests of protecting the public sewerage system).

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held and noted that Holmer Parish Council had not raised any objections to the application.  Whilst recognising the concerns of the neighbour, she noted that the annexe should not result in any direct overlooking of the adjacent property.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that there would not be any significant difference to the existing relationship between the two properties and confirmed that a condition would require that no windows be inserted in the eastern elevation of the extension.

Some Members questioned the design approach of the proposed extension.

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.      E17 (No windows in side elevation of extension) (eastern).

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

3.      The annexe dwelling and the existing dwelling known as 'Wychways' shall not be sold separately from each other.

Reason: The local planning authority wish to control the specific use of the land/premises in the interest of local amenity.

4.      H12 (Parking and turning - single house) (4 cars).

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

5.      During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times: Monday - Friday 7.00 am - 6.00 pm, Saturday 8.00 am - 1.00 pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard residential amenity.

6.      There shall be no, direct or indirect, discharge of surface water to the public foul sewer.

Reason: To safeguard the public sewerage system and reduce the risk of surcharge flooding

Informatives:

1.      N01 - Access for all.

2.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

3.      N14 - Party Wall Act 1996.

4.      All machinery and plant shall be operated and maintained in accordance with BS5228: 1997 'Noise Control of Construction and Open Sites'.

5.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

For:      Mr. & Mrs. R. Jones, The Birches Stables, Burghill, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 7RU

Ward: Burghill, Holmer & Lyde

Change of use from agricultural to a 2 family gypsy site.

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Reynolds had registered to speak on behalf of Burghill Parish Council and Mr. Swancott had registered to speak against the application but both decided to defer their opportunities to speak until the application was next considered following the site inspection.

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.

To clarify the evolution of the housing site at Bradbury Lines and establish the current planning position and what is expected for the completion of the remaining phase of development.

Ward: St Martins & Hinton

The Sub-Committee received an information report about the background to the housing site at Bradbury Lines, the current planning position and what was expected with regard to the completion of the remaining phase of development.  The Sub-Committee thanked the officers for the report.

RESOLVED:

That the information provided within the above report be noted.

Wednesday 13th December, 2006.

Wednesday 13th December, 2006.