It was noted that Councillor JE Pemberton was elected Chairman and Councillor GA Powell was appointed Vice-Chairman at Annual Council on 25th May, 2007.  The Chairman paid tribute to the work of the previous Chairman, D.J. Fleet, and hoped to maintain the same high standards.  She welcomed the recently elected and returning Councillors to the Sub-Committee and introduced the officers.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors ACR Chappell and RI Matthews.

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

The following declarations of interest were made:-

Mr. P. Clasby, the Senior Planning Officer, declared a prejudicial interest in Minute 225, Item 13 (DCCW2007/0362/F) and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 25th April, 2007.

The Minutes of the last meeting were received.

RESOLVED:            That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25th April, 2007 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.

Erection of 2 no. detached houses and replacement garage for no. 17 Walney Lane and associated access works.

Erection of 2 no. detached houses and replacement garage for no. 17 Walney Lane and associated access works.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

§         The applicants had undertaken an ecological survey which had not revealed the presence of any protected species on site but advised that bats and badgers were present locally and some mitigation was recommended.  Therefore, an additional condition requiring the installation of bat boxes and badger protective boundary fencing was suggested.

§         It was recommended that condition 13 be amended to require the development to connect to the mains drain when available.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Boddington spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, felt that the widening of the existing access could result in additional traffic and indiscriminate parking which would be detrimental to the character of the lane.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, welcomed the reduction in the number of proposed dwellings, from three to two, and commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held.  He felt that the main issue was the impact of traffic movements on the lane and questioned the removal of a proposed passing bay from the scheme.  He also welcomed the condition in respect of connection to the main drain.

The Area Engineer (South) advised the Sub-Committee that it was considered that a passing bay in the position suggested would provide negligible benefit and that the revised access and the provision of a turning head would mitigate the impact of the development.  In response to a question, he said that a Traffic Regulation Order might be necessary if parking became a problem as a result of the access widening.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that: he was not aware of a section of historic stone wall referred to by the speaker and explained how the widening of the access would be achieved; there was a need to balance the preservation of the character of the lane and highway safety considerations; the Conservation Manager did not have any objections to the proposal; and access for emergency vehicles would be improved through the provision of the turning head.

Councillor AT Oliver, referring to policies S1 (Sustainable development) and S7 (Natural and historic heritage), commented on the importance of preserving local distinctiveness and felt that this site and the residential and visual amenities enjoyed by local residents should be safeguarded.

Councillor AM Toon commented on the potential problems with private drainage systems.  She also asked whether any planning contributions could be secured from the developer.  The Development Control Manager responded by advising that, under current policies, the scale of development was below the threshold at which contributions could be required.

Councillor PA Andrews did not feel that there were sufficient planning reasons to warrant refusal of this application.  She added that the mitigation measures proposed should minimise the impact of the development.  A number of members concurred with these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Replacement dwelling and continued temporary use of existing outbuilding as full residential accommodation.  (Alternative siting of approved dwelling under CE2002/1868/F).

Replacement dwelling and continued temporary use of existing outbuilding as full residential accommodation.  (Alternative siting of approved dwelling under CE2002/1868/F).

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

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, noted the concerns of an objector and questioned whether the site was prone to flooding.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the site was not in a recognised flood plain.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.  He also suggested that further discussions be held between officers and the applicant to assess whether there was any room for compromise in order to address the issues raised in the report.

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.

Residential development together with alterations to 10 Ledbury Road to provide 8 residential units.

Residential development together with alterations to 10 Ledbury Road to provide 8 residential units.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

§         Further letters of objection had been received from M.D. Lloyd Hayes, K. Matthew, J. Whitmore, a letter signed by the occupants of 1, 2, 3 and 4 Templars Lane and a petition with 52 signatures.  Additional comments not already detailed in the representations section of the report were summarised.

§         Hereford City Council recommended refusal on the grounds of over intensive development of the site with deficient access onto a busy highway.

§         The consultation period had expired but some of the requested additional information has not been received, therefore the recommendation remained as set out in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Morgan spoke in objection to the application.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Area Engineer (South) summarised the accident record for the last five years in the vicinity of the site and commented that the Traffic Manager was satisfied that the proposed access was acceptable.

Councillor WJ Walling, a Local Ward Member, commented that the proposed development was imaginative but recognised local concerns about access and parking and felt that a site inspection was warranted.

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.

Proposed bungalow.

Proposed bungalow.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, noted that few of the existing garages were used for the parking of vehicles by local residents and that the re-development was considered beneficial.  However, she stressed the need to protect the privacy of surrounding properties through adequate boundary treatments.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that siting of the development should not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and drew attention to condition 5 - GO1 (Details of boundary treatments).

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the applicant had advised that few of the existing garages were used for the parking of vehicles and the majority were used for general storage.

Councillor DB Wilcox felt it was regrettable that off-street parking would be lost as a consequence of this proposal, particularly given the problems in the St. James’ Road area.

In response to a question, the Development Control Manager explained that the determination of the planning application would not override any private rights of access that may exist.  He noted that there were some cases where developments had been resisted where garages might be lost but this would require hard evidence of significant local use and this was not available in this instance.  It was also noted that the traffic generated by the proposed use would be less than the existing use.

A motion to defer consideration of the application to investigate further the current use of the garages was lost and the following resolution was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be approved for the following reasons:

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.      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.

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

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

5.      G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

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

6.      W01 (Foul/surface water drainage).

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

7.      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.

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

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

Proposed bungalow for a disabled person.

Proposed bungalow for a disabled person.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         Four further letters of support had been received via the Local Ward Member.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, advised that he had received fourteen further letters of support before the meeting.  He noted that the Ramblers’ Association had no objection, that Preston Wynne Parish Council strongly supported the application and that many local residents had expressed support for the development.  He drew attention to the Council’s guiding principles of ‘Putting People First’ and ‘Providing for our Communities’ and felt that these were important in this case.  He noted that there were other options but felt that none would suit the specific requirements of the applicant as well as this proposal.  Therefore, he felt that the application should be supported and approved.

In response to a question from Councillor SJ Robertson, the Legal Practice Manager outlined the referral process in relation to decisions made contrary to officer recommendation but advised that any further comment would be premature at this stage.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes commented on the special circumstances of the applicant and supported the application.  She also felt that the applicant’s access to a car was irrelevant.

In response to a question from Councillor DB Wilcox, the Central Team Leader advised that there were no material changes to the applications previously refused (DCCE2006/2453/F and DCCE2005/3999/F refers).  He added that other temporary forms of development or ancillary accommodation might be options for consideration by the applicant but any future application would need to be determined on its own merits.

A number of members sympathised with the applicant’s situation but felt that the restrictive policy stance for new dwellings in the open countryside had to be maintained.  Comments were made about the increasing demand for suitable accommodation and for appropriate policies to address such needs.

In response to a question from Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Central Team Leader said that he did not have any information about the orchard at the site, nevertheless there were significant policy objections against the proposal.

Councillor Greenow drew attention to the suggestion that the development be tied to the applicant and any spouse and any dependents she may have.  However, some members noted that the property would remain in perpetuity.

A motion to approve the application failed and the resolution below was agreed.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The development is contrary to Policy H7 of the emerging Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007, together with advice contained within PPS7 entitled Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, as the site the for dwelling lies outside of a defined settlement and none of the exceptions to new housing in the countryside have been satisfied.

2.      The proposed development, by virtue of its remote location, is contrary to PPG3: Housing, PPG13: Transportation, and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 Policies S1, S2 and DR2, which seek to prevent unsustainable development and reduce the need to travel.

Site for erection of maximum of 5 dwelling units.  A resubmission of app. no. DCCE2005/2160/O.

Site for erection of maximum of 5 dwelling units.  A resubmission of app. no. DCCE2005/2160/O.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

§         Attention was drawn to the need to correct paragraph 1.1 and 6.6, in that the reference to Stony Yeld was incorrect and should be deleted.

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

In response to comments made by the speaker, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the history of the application, the delays resulting from lack of information provided regarding proof of ownership of some of the land, and the development of planning policy during this time.  He drew attention to three key issues: that the Traffic Manager objected on the grounds that the scheme would be detrimental to highway safety; that the application failed to demonstrate any proven local need; and that, although the ‘fall back’ position was the use of this site as a HGV goods yard, the mitigating circumstances were not considered to outweigh the policy objections in this instance.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, recognised that the site would benefit from some form of re-development but felt that affordable housing requirements of Policy H6 (Housing in smaller settlements) had to be upheld.  A number of Members supported this view.

Some Members commented on the historic use of the site and felt that the access was sufficient, particularly if traffic-calming works were undertaken in the vicinity of the site.  Councillor DB Wilcox commented that the Traffic Manager had made an explicit objection that inadequate access arrangements were available and as such this proposal was detrimental to highway safety.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

1.            The application site lies within a designated Smaller Settlement and the proposal, by reason of the site characteristics, is one where only affordable housing would be permitted.  The application fails to demonstrate any proven local need and therefore is contrary to Policy H6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.            The proposed development would be served by an unsuitable and substandard access which, if allowed, would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety.  The proposal is therefore contrary to PPG13, Planning Guidance and Advice Document: Manual for the Street – March 2007, and Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 Policies S1, S2, DR3 and H1.

New sports hall & alterations to existing science block.

New sports hall & alterations to existing science block.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         The Traffic Manager had confirmed that the revised plans recessing the fire door openings had overcome his initial concerns.

§         The consultation period for the revised plans did not expire until 7th June, 2007 and further comments were awaited from Hereford City Council, who objected to the proposal in its original form.

§         The recommendation detailed in the report should include reference to the need for the consultation period to expire before the application could be referred to the Secretary of State.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the 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 reason:

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

Variation of Condition 8 of Planning Permission DCCW2004/1679/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

Variation of Condition 8 of Planning Permission DCCW2004/1679/F to allow for dot.com operations on Sundays between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

§         The applicant’s agents had requested that further consideration be given to the commencement of activities in the yard at 0900 to allow sufficient time for the cooling of on-board refrigeration and loading, contrary to the recommendation which stated 1000.  Officers had reviewed the matter further and considered that the recommendation reflected an acceptable start time commensurate with the operations at the store.

Councillor PJ Edwards, a Local Ward Member, noted that there were a number of ongoing concerns about the overall management of the store and related trading activities.  He commented on the unacceptable noise from the application site, especially when the new acoustic gate was left open contrary to a condition on a previous application.  He felt that any further expansion in hours should be resisted and that the 1000 commencement of activities should remain.  He requested that the applicant’s be reminded of their duty to adhere to conditions and ensure good management of the site.

Councillor GA Powell, also a Local Ward Member, noted that it was difficult to balance commercial needs against the residential amenity considerations.  She said that she reluctantly supported the recommendation by officers but asked that the situation be monitored closely by Planning Enforcement and by Environmental Protection.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the twelve-month planning permission granted the previous year (DCCW2006/0869/F refers) had not been implemented and, in light of this, a further temporary planning permission was considered appropriate.

Councillor AT Oliver did not feel that there was justification for the expansion of activities on Sundays, demonstrated by the fact that the previous temporary permission was not implemented, and felt that the application should be refused.

Councillor PJ Edwards moved that, subject to the necessary amendments and an advisory letter to the applicant, the question be put and this was supported by a number of members.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      The permission hereby granted is for the activities defined in the application (the "permitted operations") and shall endure for a trial period of 12 months.  Prior to commencement of the trial period the applicant shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the start date whereupon the local planning authority shall confirm in writing to the applicant the start and end dates of the trial period.  The permitted operations shall cease at the end of the trial period.

Reason: To define the start and end dates of the trial period and to enable the effects of the permitted operations to be assessed against the interests defined in Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

2.      No machinery shall be operated or delivery vehicles loaded in association with the dot.com deliveries before 0700 hours or after 2300 hours on weekdays and Saturdays or outside the hours  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Proposed change of use of land to car parking.

Proposed change of use of land to car parking.

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, made the following comments: further capacity could be provided by the proper marking out of the existing car parking area; she was surprised that the Traffic Manager had no objections given that other officers and the police had acknowledged that there were issues about the speed and volume of traffic accessing the site through Cleeve Orchard; it was noted that Holmer Park Health Club and Spa advertised its facilities for conference and other uses and she questioned whether this represented a change of use under planning legislation; concerns were expressed about inconsiderate and dangerous driving by clientele of the club; concerns were expressed about additional traffic on the A49 and Roman Road, particularly given the history of accidents; she was disappointed by the piecemeal development of this site and retrospective applications; the historic significance of the original house and grounds was noted and the weight that a Planning Inspector gave to the character and visual amenity of the area in relation to a previous application.  In view of these considerations, she felt that the application should be refused given the detrimental impact on the grounds of highway safety and visual amenity.  She added that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to approve the application, it would be beneficial delegate authority to the officers, in consultation with the Chairman and the Local Ward Member, so that a contribution towards traffic calming in the area could be secured.

The Development Control Manager advised that the proposal did not seek to increase the floorspace of the Health Club and Spa and, therefore, the application sought to provide parking for existing traffic.  He felt that, given the lack of objection from the Traffic Manager subject to conditions, it could be difficult to sustain a refusal reason based on highway safety.  He noted, however, that a judgement needed to be taken on the visual impact of the proposal on the historic grounds.

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the history of the site and the change of use from a social club to a health and spa club.  He advised that occasional conferences and funeral wakes had been accommodated and these uses were considered to be ancillary to the main health and spa use of the establishment.

Councillor Robertson commented on meetings with highways officers and the police that had identified problems with the traffic generated by the facility.  However, she acknowledged the Development Control Manager’s advice and felt that impact on visual amenity was a significant consideration.

Some members felt that the application was contrary to the spirit of sustainable development and modes of transport.

Councillor PA Andrews noted the assertion that ‘plastic grasscrete’, as had been used elsewhere on the site, was not suitable in this location but commented that there were more robust types of grass paving and felt that this should be pursued.  Councillor DB Wilcox also felt that this would help to mitigate the visual amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

4 no. two bedroom semi detached starter homes with parking.  Demolish existing garaging.

4 no. two bedroom semi detached starter homes with parking.  Demolish existing garaging.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Davies had registered to speak in support of the application but decided not to speak on this occasion.

Councillor PA Andrews, 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 reason:

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

Proposed two storey extension to rear of residential home for the elderly to provide 4 no. single bedrooms.

Proposed two storey extension to rear of residential home for the elderly to provide 4 no. single bedrooms.

The following update was provided:

§         Comments had been received from Hereford City Council (recommending refusal).

§         The applicant’s agent had submitted a revised design which was considered to improve the visual appearance of the proposed development within the streetscape.

§         An additional informative note was recommended as follows: ‘The applicant is advised that the property has now reached the limit of its capacity for alteration and extension; therefore there is no scope for any further development beyond that approved.’

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Jenkins spoke in objection to the application.

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.

Wednesday 4th July, 2007.

Wednesday 4th July, 2007 at 2.00 p.m.