To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs. P.A. Andrews, Mrs. E.M. Bew, A.C.R. Chappell, Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels, J.G.S. Guthrie and Ms. A.M. Toon.

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

The following declarations of interest were made:-

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

The Minutes of the last meeting were received.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 4th April, 2007 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of new building to provide commercial (A3) unit and six residential units above.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of new building to provide commercial (A3) unit and six residential units above.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         The applicants had provided a revised elevation plan to illustrate the impact of the proposal on the windows serving the next door retail unit.

§         The recommendation was altered so that conditions 12 to 14 detailed in the report were substituted for standard condition F18 to deal with foul and surface water drainage arrangements.

The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as the Local Ward Member, commented on the difficulty of developing the land without one problem or another given the site constraints.

In response to questions about loss of light to the retail unit to the south, the Central Team Leader advised that commercial properties were not afforded the same level of protection as residential properties.  He added that the applicant had agreed to the whitewashing of the wall facing the neighbouring property in order to reflect some natural light into some of the windows.

In response to comments about the potential for disturbance and litter being generated by the proposed restaurant/café, the Central Team Leader advised that an A3 use class had been applied for and this would not permit the sale of takeaway food.  He also commented on the shopping frontage policy and advised that the proposal was considered acceptable, particularly as it would enhance the character and appearance of the site and the street scene.

A number of Members felt it regrettable that some loss of light would result from the development but considered that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the disadvantages.

In response to questions, the Central Team Leader: drew attention to the fact that the Environmental Health Manager had no objections subject to conditions; explained the design approach for the frontage and the materials to be used; and advised that a condition could be added to require details of refuse storage to be submitted and approved prior to occupation.

RESOLVED:

DCCE2007/0493/F

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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

2.      No development shall take place until details or samples of materials to be used externally on walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

3.      Before development commences architectural details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards at a scale of 1:1 or 1:5 shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building in the interest of visual amenity.

4.      Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed finishes for all external joinery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

External fire escape staircase from ground floor to first floor (retrospective).

External fire escape staircase from ground floor to first floor (retrospective).

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held and noted that the Conservation Manager was in discussions with the applicant about a number of issues at the site.  However, she expressed concerns that people may congregate on the fire escape staircase and this could lead to health and safety risks and cause noise disturbance.  Councillor R.M. Wilson suggested that alarms or break-locks could be installed to prevent non-emergency use of the staircase.

A number of Members commented on the need to mitigate the visual impact of the fire escape staircase and felt that it should be painted a suitable colour.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

1.      Within one month of the date of this permission the fire escape shall be painted a dark green colour or other suitable colour to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.  Thereafter the fire escape shall be maintained in accordance with the approved detail.

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

2.      The fire escape stair hereby approved shall only be used in the event of an emergency.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the residential amenity of the surrounding locality.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

Proposed agricultural building for general stock housing and grain store.

Proposed agricultural building for general stock housing and grain store.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         Attention was drawn to the need to correct Page 19, paragraph 5.1, fifth line, so that it read ‘…is probably the last least obtrusive position...’

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Powell spoke in support of the application.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, noted the extent of local support for the proposal and did not feel that the development would have a significant impact on the landscape quality of the area.

A number of Members spoke in support of the application and felt that the potential detrimental impact of the development had been overstated, particularly as existing landscaping would provide screening for the building.

The Central Team Leader drew attention to the concerns of the Conservation Manager and noted that alternative sites had been suggested but had been discounted by the applicant.  He requested that, should the Sub-Committee be minded to approve the application, officers be delegated to include appropriate conditions on the planning permission to mitigate the impact of the development. 

Councillor P.J. Edwards suggested that conditions to control the use of materials, particularly roofing, should be included to lessen the impact of the development.

RESOLVED: That

(i)              The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to the following condition and any further conditions 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.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

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

2.    The whole of the external cladding of the building shall be permanently coloured in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before development commences.  The cladding shall be coloured in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development.

3.    No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping enhancement and maintenance which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows along the boundaries of Field No. 4400, details of any to be retained together with measures for their long term protection and management.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the site and surrounding countryside.

4.      Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed plan, showing the levels of the existing site, the proposed slab levels of the building approved and a datum point outside of the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

Retention of existing pontoon, steps and storage area for max. 30 canoes.

Retention of existing pontoon, steps and storage area for max. 30 canoes.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         Further letters of support had been received from Barbara Layton and Robert Peers of 9 and 10 Noverwood Drive, Fownhope respectively; both letters commented on the importance of the canoe launch in terms of tourism and leisure activities.

§         Attention was drawn to the need to correct Page 23, paragraph 1.1, in that the application did not relate to the provision of a terraced enclosure and this section of the first sentence should be omitted.

§         Attention was drawn to the need to correct Page 28, paragraph 6.8, so that it the words “and in this way it can be ensured that the traffic generation” were omitted from the fifth and sixth line.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, commented on the planning history of the site and the significant growth of the business in recent years.  She noted that the site was popular and well maintained.  However, she expressed concerns about the potential impact on visual and residential amenities.  She also questioned the arrangements in respect of storage, parking and access to the river.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas drew attention to the objections of Holme Lacy Parish Council, to concerns about the retrospective nature of some of the applications relating to this site, and to concerns about access arrangements.  He also noted that an existing parking and turning area was being used as a seating area and questioned where visiting groups would park and manoeuvre.

Councillor R.M. Wilson commented that the proposal should mitigate health and safety risks associated with the access to the river but questioned the positioning of the vertical poles that would secure the pontoon and suggested that this be addressed through the conditions.

Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes felt it regrettable that this was a retrospective application but noted the importance of river based activities to tourism and the limited number of launching / landing sites along the River Wye.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox suggested that the parking situation could be addressed through the use of Grasscrete or similar grassed paving system.

Councillor Mrs. E.A. Taylor suggested that it would be a good idea for the applicant to review the health and safety of children accessing the river from the park.

Councillor P.J. Edwards asked whether there was a log of movements of people using this site for launching / landing and suggested that this could help to establish appropriate controls.

In response to a number of questions and comments, the Central Team Leader advised that: the area previously used for launching by the park was under separate ownership and, although access to the river could not be controlled, a boundary treatment condition could be included to restrict access to the other site; that details of the parking and turning arrangements could be required through a condition; the structural integrity of the pontoon could be examined; and the purpose of the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

Improvement to existing vehicular access and re-use of existing reception building and store for office, sales and cafe.

Improvement to existing vehicular access and re-use of existing reception building and store for office, sales and cafe.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         A further letter of support had been received from Barbara Layton of 9 Noverwood Drive, Fownhope; the letter stressed the importance of the proposed café in terms of promoting a high quality tourist attraction.

§         The Lead Engineer (Traffic) had advised that, following further consideration of the option of localised speed restrictions in the vicinity of the caravan site and the potential for the section of road between Mordiford and Fownhope to be restricted, there was insufficient evidence to justify a reduction at this time.

§         Notwithstanding the lack of justification for speed restrictions, officers considered that the application, by reason of the internal widening of the access, would enhance the safety of the current access arrangements.

§         For the purposes of clarity, the Sub-Committee was advised that recommended condition 2 would restrict the use of the building to the times when the caravan site was open; this was understood to be from March - November.  It was recommended that the café and shop elements be available to park residents between 0800 and 2300 daily.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss Harris spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Jolly spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Mrs. J.E. Pemberton, the Local Ward Member, felt that the highway safety risks had been underestimated.  She felt that speed restrictions or, at least, warning signs should be installed along the road to highlight the dangers of slow moving traffic entering and exiting the caravan park.  Noting the concerns of the public speaker, Councillor Mrs. Pemberton suggested that the hours of opening of the café element should be restricted.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, while acknowledging that the revised access arrangements would improve site access to some extent, concurred with the Local Ward Member about the highway safety risks associated with the B4224 and commented on the intensification of activity at the caravan park in recent years.  He noted that there were no footpaths along the main road and not even verges in some places.  He felt that the applicants should be required to give a commitment that they would contribute to any highway safety measures deemed necessary over the next five years, perhaps for vehicle activated signage.  He questioned whether any recent surveys had been undertaken of vehicle and pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the site.

In response to the matters raised by Members, the Central Team Leader advised that: the hours of opening could be controlled by a condition; he was not aware that any detailed counts of vehicle and pedestrian movements had been made; and that a contribution towards potential highway safety measures would not pass the tests of the relevant circular, particularly as the Traffic Manager had not raised any objections to the proposals.  The Legal Practice Manager explained the use of Section 106 Agreements and commented that, without concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

Change of use of 1 no. house to 2 no. flats and single storey rear extension.

Change of use of 1 no. house to 2 no. flats and single storey rear extension.

Councillor Mrs. W.U. Attfield, a Local Ward Member, noted the need to improve the supply of dwellings in the city but felt that this proposed conversion was inappropriate to the character of the area.  She also commented on local concerns regarding highway safety.

The Development Control Manager advised that some local plans restricted the conversions of single dwellings into flats in certain areas but this was not the case with the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  Therefore, it could be difficult to sustain a refusal reason based on the impact of a conversion on the character of the area.  He also advised that the Traffic Manager had no objections, subject to a condition.

Some Members felt that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site which would have a detrimental impact on residential amenities.

In response to a question, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the applicant had previously suggested that a ‘granny annexe’ type development was being sought, the form of development had not been revised and the application should be determined on its own merits.  The Central Team Leader added that a similar conversion was permitted in Walnut Tree Avenue and, while this did not set a precedent, a Planning Inspector might criticise the authority for inconsistency.

Councillor P.J. Edward suggested that condition F39 (Scheme of refuse storage) should be included in any planning permission granted.

Noting the concerns of Members, the Development Control Manager said that he would raise the issue of conversions and the potential for areas of restraint with the relevant officer working group.

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.      B03 (Matching external materials (general)).

         Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

3.      H10 (Parking - single house).

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

4.            F39 (scheme of refuse storage)

         Reason: In the interests of amenity.

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

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

3.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

Four internally Illuminated fascia panels and one internally illuminated totem pole sign.

Four internally Illuminated fascia panels and one internally illuminated totem pole sign.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, commented on the instrusive light pollution generated by the car dealerships in this sensitive rural location and noted the concerns of the parish council and local residents.  Given these considerations, he felt that the application should be refused.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the existing lighting arrangements at the dealerships and advised that a judgement had to be made on whether this particular proposal would cause further harm which could be differentiated from existing authorised development.

A number of Members supported the views of the Local Ward Member and questioned the need for the night time illumination of the dealerships when closed, especially given environmental concerns.

The Central Team Leader advised that there was no control over hours of illumination of the dealerships at present but suggested that a condition in relation to this specific proposal could be included if planning permission was granted.

Councillor Thomas maintained that the proposal was unacceptable and expressed concern that the fascia panels and totem pole would result in additional harm being caused to the amenities of the locality.

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.   The proposed internally illuminated fascia panels and totem pole sign would particularly by reason of the combined extent of illumination and external colour finishes detract from the visual amenity of this isolated rural location contrary to Policy HBA11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(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, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services.]

Erection of 4 no. new 6m high steel lighting columns, each fitted with vertical louvres – retrospective.

Erection of 4 no. new 6m high steel lighting columns, each fitted with vertical louvres – retrospective.

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, the Local Ward Member, commented that the light from the columns was not confined to the site and caused significant light pollution which intruded into the residential amenity of local residents.  He also felt that the use of lighting throughout the night and early morning in this location was unnecessary.

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.   The external lighting as proposed would individually and cumulatively detract from the visual amenity and character of the surrounding countryside contrary to Policies DR14 and LA2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(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, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services given the grounds for refusal put forward by the Sub-Committee.]

Proposed extension to barn.

Proposed extension to barn.

The Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         A letter of objection had been received from DPDS, the agent acting on behalf of objectors; the contents of the letter were summarised and included concerns about the recent planning history, the cumulative impact on the landscape, noise disturbance and visual impact.  The agent asked for a condition which imposed maximum noise levels at the boundary of the site and suggested that the application should be withdrawn from this meeting.

§         The Environmental Health Manager had advised that the proposal was unlikely to have any significant detrimental effect on noise levels experienced at neighbouring properties and therefore had no objection to the application.

§         An additional letter had been received from the applicant’s agent; it was suggested that the recommended noise condition was unnecessary.

§         In response to the comments made by the agents, officers considered condition 3 relating to noise to be reasonable and necessary.  It was noted that it only related to the development applied for.

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

Councillor W.J.S. Thomas, a Local Ward Member, commented that the location of the site was such that noise carried easily to neighbouring residential properties and he felt that further development should not cause any additional disturbance to local residents.  He noted that condition 3 would provide the necessary controls and suggested that measurements be taken from nearby properties so that the sound levels generated were assessed properly.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be approved 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.      B02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

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

3.      F02 (Scheme of measures for controlling noise).

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

Informatives:

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

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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 Central Team Leader reported the following:

§         A further letter of objection had been received from Mr. Stanbridge, an adjacent landowner; the contents of the letter were summarised and included concerns about overlooking, overshadowing and impact on the character and appearance of the area.

§         A further letter of comment had been received from Mr. Speight; the contents of the letter were summarised and included concerns about the widened access being used for parking.

§         The Building Control Manager confirmed that, based upon the technical information provided, the proposed non-mains drainage system would provide an acceptable drainage solution if the mains drain was not developed.

§         Welsh Water had confirmed that work would commence on the new mains drain in July/August 2007.

§         The plans had been amended to ensure that the only windows at first floor on the north elevation of the property were either to be obscure glazed or angled away from existing residences.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, noted local residents’ concerns about potential over development, impact on residential amenity, impact on the character of the lane, proximity to the Conservation Area, and access implications.  Given these considerations, he felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection.  Councillor A.L. Williams, the other Local Ward Member, supported this motion.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Boddington had registered to speak in objection to the application but decided to defer his opportunity to speak until the application was next considered by the Sub-Committee 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.

6th June, 2007.

6th June, 2007