To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors AJM Blackshaw, ACR Chappell and RV Stockton (ex-officio).

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

The following declarations of interest were made:

Mr. Withers, the Central Team Leader, declared a personal interest in item 6 [DCCW2007/2684/F - 131 Whitecross Road, Hereford, HR4 0LS].

To approve and sign the Minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes of last meeting were received.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 24th October, 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.

Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

Wards: Belmont and Hollington

Proposed erection of 69 dwellings and delivery of Haywood Country Park.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Central Team Leader reported that:

§             The Environment Agency had raised an objection due to potential flooding in the north-east corner of the site and the associated lack of clarification in respect of sustainable drainage/surface water run-off techniques proposed.

§             The Highways Agency was reviewing the additional information submitted in relation to junction capacity modelling and the Residential Travel Plan.

§             A Draft Section 106 Agreement had been received from the applicants confirming agreement to the contributions as stated in the report.

§             An amended plan had been provided which showed an improved distribution of the affordable units.

§             An amended bridge design had been received but was the subject of consultation with the Conservation Manager.

§             The applicants had submitted a proposed phasing condition for delivery of the Country Park.

§             The Council’s Conservation Manager had requested additional conditions confirming compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and the Ecological Planning Statement.

The Central Team Leader commented that:

§             The applicants had submitted additional information to the Highways Agency and Environment Agency in order to overcome their respective objections but these matters remained unresolved at the time of the Sub-Committee meeting.  Therefore, the recommendation sought officer delegation to approve or refuse permission before 7 December 2007, based upon the outcome of ongoing discussions, in conjunction with the Chairman and Local Ward Members.

§             The topography and land ownership difficulties of providing access to Newton Coppice were outlined and the Sub-Committee was advised that an alternative approach was being investigated by the Parks and Countryside Manager.  Given the need for funding to establish its feasibility, this requirement was reflected in the increased contribution set against the Transportation Section of the revised Planning Contributions.

§             The affordable housing numbers remained at 35% of the development identified but the proposed tenure split had changed to 12 rented and 12 shared ownership, thereby enabling an increase in the Planning Contributions budget.

§             The revised Planning Contributions were given as:

1.      £90,000 Education/Children and Young People.

2.      £216,528 Transportation improvements in the area including provision of car parking, directional signage and appropriate infrastructure for the countryside centre, the provision of a safe crossing across Haywood Lane and the enhancement of safe access to Newton Coppice (including footpath upgrades and speed restrictions on the A465 as deemed necessary).  This contribution would include any feasibility or detailed design work as well as implementation costs required to provide enhanced facilities.

3.      £28,350 Enhancement of sports facilities in the area.

4.      £34,500 in lieu of LEAP play area.

§             In addition to the above contributions, it was recommended that the Section 106 Agreement should enable flexibility to allow any monies not required to be directed towards the design and implementation of the Countryside Centre.

§             The phasing condition proposed was considered acceptable subject to the inclusion of the car park and signage for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Change of use to house of multiple occupancy.

Ward: St. Nicholas

Change of use to house of multiple occupancy [HMO].

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Senior Planning Officer reported that:

§                The applicant had submitted a revised proposal reducing the number of bedrooms to 7 by removing the bedroom in the basement in order to provide additional communal space.

§                The revised proposal met the required standard and it had been confirmed that all of the properties in the terrace were licensed HMOs.

§                A correction was made to paragraph 1.5 of the report so that it referred to seven and not eight bedrooms.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, noted that a bedroom had been removed but said that this was not the only concern that resulted in the deferral of this application at the last meeting.  Councillor Woodward noted that the proposal complied with housing standards but remained concerned about the lack of bathroom facilities on each floor and storage space.  She also commented on perceived fear of crime issues, the limitations of this type of accommodation and the impact of HMOs on the character of the area.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, felt that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the area, commented on the standard of accommodation and about difficulties experienced with similar uses in the locality.  He noted that there was no off street car parking provision and felt that it was unrealistic to expect occupants not to have vehicles.

In response to a question from Councillor SJ Robertson, the Legal Practice Manager confirmed that fear of crime was a material planning consideration.

Councillor PA Andrews commented that some HMOs were well run but she felt that this type of accommodation was not satisfactory and that self-contained units would be preferable.  Councillor Andrews noted that the lack of parking provision was considered acceptable given the proximity of the town centre and availability of public transport.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the views of the Local Ward Members and felt that the proposal would neither improve or enhance the locality and, therefore, proposed that the application be refused due to the impact on the character of the area.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes felt that the lack of parking was unacceptable, that HMOs had a detrimental impact on the area, and on the serious problems encountered by the emergency services when tackling fires at HMOs.

Councillor AT Oliver commented that the proposal was contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policy H17 (Subdivision of Existing Houses).

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 application site is located within an established residential area, and the proposed conversion of the single dwelling to form a House in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Continued use of land as a caravan site and retention of accommodation block for seasonal agricultural workers.

Ward: Sutton Walls

Continued use of land as a caravan site and retention of accommodation block for seasonal agricultural workers.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Central Team Leader reported that:

§                Comments had been received from the Conservation Manager (no objections).

§                Comments had been received from the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager (no objections).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council and Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site visit that had been undertaken.  She expressed concerns about the scale of the development, both in its extent and in the impact on its surroundings and on the local community.  Attention was drawn to the objections summarised in the report and it was noted that residents were worried about the potential for the site to become a dormitory settlement, with a population outnumbering that of Marden.  The significant influx of workers had also resulted in fear of crime and anti-social behaviour issues.  Councillor Guthrie was surprised that the Conservation Manager had no objections to the application given the landscape impact and that planting had failed.  She was also surprised that the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager had no objections given the noise generated at the site.  The impact on the local road network was also noted, particularly the disturbance caused by HGVs in the early hours of the morning.  Given these considerations, Councillor Guthrie felt that application should be refused given the adverse impacts on residential amenities and felt that it was contrary to policy E13 (Agricultural and Forestry Development) of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the Local Ward Member and commented on the scale of the development.  He felt that the impact on an adjacent Listed Building had been underestimated and the development was contrary to policy HBA4 (Setting of Listed Buildings).  He also questioned whether the accommodation on site was solely for agricultural workers at Brook Farm.

Councillor DW Greenow said that he had sympathy for local residents but also noted the difficulties faced by the applicants, especially given the lack of people interested in agricultural work locally.  Whilst he felt that the development was an eyesore and expressed concerns about living standards, he noted that the applicants needed the accommodation to support the operation at Brook Farm.

Councillor SJ Robertson commended the hard work of the Local Ward Member and felt that the impact on the landscape and local community was unacceptable.

In response to a question from Councillor AP Taylor, the Central Team Leader advised that the standard of accommodation was an issue for other legislation and was not a material planning consideration in this instance.  The Development Control Manager added that fire regulations were also outside the remit of the Sub-Committee.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the operation needed workers and that it was better for them  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Retention of polytunnels.

Ward: Sutton Walls

Retention of polytunnels.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Central Team Leader reported that:

§                Comments had been received from Natural England (no objections).

§                Comments had been received from the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager (no objections).

§                Comments had been received from the Council’s Ecologist (no objections).  The recommendations of the Landscape Officer in relation to the removal of a section of polytunnels and the planting of a new hedgerow to the north of the public right of way were supported.  Consequently, an additional condition was suggested and is incorporated into the recommendation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council and Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, noted that the application had to be considered on individual merit but felt that the cumulative impact of development at Brook Farm and the impact on its surroundings had to be taken into consideration.  She said that her late father, former Councillor JGS Guthrie, had on many occasions expressed concerns about the extent of the polytunnels in Marden and the detrimental impact on the landscape and on the amenity of local residents.  She drew attention to the concerns raised in the letters of objection and felt that the level of activity at the site was more akin to industrial use rather than rural enterprise.  She felt it essential that the character and amenity of the area be protected and that the application be refused as the development would be contrary to PPG7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and policies S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR4, E6, E10, E13, LA2 and LA3 of theHerefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor DW Greenow drew attention to the letters of representation and, in particular, noted the unsightly nature of polytunnels, the need to ensure that water and mud did not run-off onto nearby roads, and the need to control hours of operation.

Councillor SJ Robertson was surprised that the Public Rights of Way Manager did not object, especially given recent injuries to horses resulting from rubbish being left on bridleways.  She agreed with the Local Ward Member that the application should be refused given the impact on the area and also commented on the potential impact of the development on tourism.

The Development Control Manager acknowledged concerns about the other polytunnels in the area but emphasised the need to focus on the application before the Sub-Committee.  He added, unlike some other areas, officers felt these two fields to be well related to the farm complex and were contained within areas considered acceptable in landscape terms.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the officers’ appraisal and felt that, with the recommended conditions and appropriate landscaping, the site would be reasonably well screened.  Furthermore, refusal of planning permission would undermine the authority’s position in respect of less suitable sites.

A number of members commented on the detrimental impact of polytunnel development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Siting of wooden cabin to accommodate needs of disabled person.

Ward: Hagley

Siting of wooden cabin to accommodate needs of disabled person.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Senior Planning Officer reported that:

§                An additional letter had been received from the occupants of The Old Vicarage, Preston Wynne and the comments were summarised.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Fletcher spoke on behalf of Preston Wynne Parish Council and Miss Davies spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, including: the individual needs and wish of the applicant to achieve independence yet remain within the local community; that the temporary nature of the wooden cabin should overcome previous concerns about a permanent structure in this location; he considered the design and scale of the proposed development to be acceptable; no objections had been received from local residents and there was significant support from the parish council and villagers; no objections had been received from statutory consultees, the Traffic Manager or the Public Rights of Way Manager; and the applicant’s doctor supported the proposal.  Given these considerations, he felt that the exceptional circumstances of the applicant were such that they should override the planning policy objections, particularly if planning permission was restricted to the lifetime of the applicant and a spouse or dependents.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes supported the application, felt that there were contradictions in the Unitary Development Plan and the report, considered that the proposal was backed by community strategy and housing needs objectives, and the personal restriction would control the future use of the site.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the dimensions of the development would exceed those given in the definition of a caravan and would be larger than what would be permissible as a three-bedroom dwelling in a smaller settlement.  He commented that there were thousands of people in the county who would want a similar dwelling and felt that the Sub-Committee should focus on the national and local planning policy issues.  Whilst acknowledging the specific needs of the applicant, he noted that the application did not meet the relevant criteria and supported the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard suggested that, if planning permission was granted, the temporary nature of the proposal had to ensured and suggested conditions preventing connection to mains drainage, requiring overhead connection to main services and restricting the permission to the lifetime of the applicant only and not to a spouse or dependents.

RESOLVED:

That  

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee was minded to approve the application subject to 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.

(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 approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Proposed change of use from retail unit and private members club to A3 restaurant use.

Ward: Central

Proposed change of use from retail unit and private members club to A3 restaurant use.

Referring to the Schedule of Committee Updates/Additional Representations that was circulated at the meeting, the Senior Planning Officer reported that:

§                Comments had been received from Hereford City Council (no objections).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Wyllie and Mr. Branczik spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, commented that the corner position of the premises meant that noise generated inside carried some distance along nearby streets, thereby having a detrimental impact on residential amenity.  It was noted that businesses occupying the premises had folded and he questioned the economic viability of A3 restaurant use in this location.  However, he felt that the re-use of the building should be supported, particularly as there had been some vandalism recently, and noted that the Castle Street & District Residents’ Association supported the application in principle subject to safeguards.  It was considered essential that the amenities of residential property in the locality were protected and additional restrictions were suggested in respect of operating and closing times.

In response, the Legal Practice Manager drew attention to recommended condition 5 which would only allow the use to be open to customers until midnight.  Whilst it was for the Sub-Committee to determine the principle of development, it was for the regulatory framework to determine individual applications and conditions in relation to liquor licensing and any additional licensable activities.

In response to a question from Councillor PA Andrews, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the type of restaurant was not specified in the application.  The Development Control Manager advised that takeaway use was a different use class and commented that, as the application related to existing commercial premises, it could be difficult to sustain a refusal of planning permission on appeal.

A number of members expressed concerns about the potential for this development to expand further through the incorporation of the former ‘Doodies’ restaurant.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that this restaurant was in the same A3 use class but any direct link created between the premises would require listed building consent.

Given the concerns raised, the Senior Planning Officer suggested additional conditions to prevent the sale of takeaway food, to prevent the use of amplified music, and to require a scheme of noise attenuation.  This was supported by the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be approved 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.         A scheme for the ventilation of fumes and odours arising from the use hereby permitted shall be submitted for the approval of the local planning authority and the use shall not be commenced until the approved scheme has been installed and made fully operational, and thereafter it shall be operated and maintained, as long as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

19th December, 2007

19th December, 2007