To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors PA Andrews, AJM Blackshaw, ACR Chappell, SPA Daniels, AM Toon, NL Vaughan and DB Wilcox.  Apologies were also received from Councillor TW Hunt (ex-officio).

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

The following declarations of interest were made:

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 19th December, 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.

The Development Control Manager reported that an application in relation to the final phase of development at Bradbury Lines, Hereford was likely to be submitted to the Sub-Committee for consideration at a forthcoming meeting.  He felt that members would benefit from a site inspection in advance of the Sub-Committee meeting; he cited all three grounds for holding a site inspection as detailed in the Constitution.  The Sub-Committee supported this suggestion.

Erection of nine apartments with associated car parking and landscaping.

Ward: Tupsley

Erection of nine apartments with associated car parking and landscaping.

The following update was reported:

·       An e-mail had been received from the applicant in support of the application, pointing out the compliance with policy and the sustainable location.

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

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, commented on local residents’ concerns about the loss of trees but felt that, subject to sensitive management of the landscape, the proposal was acceptable.  In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Nature Conservation Management Plan was a voluntary undertaking by the applicant and was supported by the Conservation Manager (Ecology).

Councillor WJ Walling, a Local Ward Member, considered the proposal to be well thought out, welcomed the proposed planning obligation agreement and felt that the design would complement the Conservation Area.

Councillor AP Taylor, the other Local Ward Member, supported the application, especially given the incorporation of solar panels and other sustainable measures in the scheme.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the report stated (in paragraph 6.6, page 17) that the roof provided ‘ample opportunity for the introduction of solar panels as demonstrated on the architectural drawings’ and he felt that the panels should be required as part of any planning permission granted, particularly given emerging planning policy on renewable energy schemes.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that a condition could be added to require the solar panels to remain in situ and be useable thereafter.

In response to a question from Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Natural England would be consulted as part of the Nature Conservation Management Plan.

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the development could not be required to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes.  He added that, as the technical criteria was not yet known, it would be unreasonable to require a condition to this effect.  He noted that there were, nevertheless, a number of sustainable initiatives included in the scheme.

Councillor GFM Dawe questioned the sustainability considerations, particularly as the inclusion of nine parking spaces would increase car usage at the site, and felt that the development would have a deleterious impact.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the provision of one parking space per unit was a minimum requirement and the lack of additional parking should encourage modal shift.  In response to Councillor Dawe’s concerns about the loss of the hedgerow, the Senior Planning Officer also advised that the applicant was prepared to replant a beech hedge behind the line of the required visibility splay; he added that hedgerows were not protected under Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area legislation.

RESOLVED:

1)      The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report and incorporating any additional matters he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Construction of a single dwelling.

Ward: Belmont

Construction of a single dwelling.

The following update was reported:

·       An e-mail had been received from the applicant in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Environment Agency was satisfied with the Flood Risk Assessment and proposed slab levels.

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, felt that the access and car parking arrangements could compromise highway safety, particularly given the position of the site on a popular cycleway and next to a children’s play area.

Councillor PJ Edwards, also a Local Ward Member, questioned the ownership of an area of land fronting the highway as he felt that the enclosure of this land would make it more likely for vehicles to reverse out of the site which would exacerbate the risk of accidents on the strategic cycleway.  He felt that greater emphasis should have been given to the importance of the cycleway.  He also felt that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and on the natural habitat along the riverbank.

Councillor GA Powell, the other Local Ward Member, did not feel that there had been enough consultation about flooding and riverbank erosion.  She also highlighted concerns about highway safety, overlooking onto the children’s play area, setting a precedent and the impact on the character and amenity of the area.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to members’ concerns as follows: the Traffic Manager had no objections subject to conditions; the Environment Agency was satisfied with the proposal; the River Wye had a number of important designations but Natural England did not control the bank tops; although unkempt, the area concerned was within the domestic curtilage of 10 Luard Walk and there was no issue about the loss of wild space; and the proximity of the development to the play area could be considered a community safety gain as it would allow a degree of passive overlooking.

Councillor DW Greenow noted the concerns of the Local Ward Members but felt that, given the advice of officers, it might be difficult to sustain a refusal of planning permission on appeal.  In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Traffic Manager had recommended standard conditions, namely conditions 7 to 11. 

The Development Control Manager did not feel that a number of the issues raised in the debate could be substantiated as reasons for refusal.  Referring to Policy DR3 (Movement), he noted that a judgement needed to be taken on the impact of additional residential traffic on the footpath/cycleway but questioned whether the traffic generated by one additional dwelling would be so significant as to warrant refusal.  It was suggested that members’ concerns about boundary treatments could be addressed through the removal of permitted development rights.

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the Development Control Manager advised that the development could be required to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes.  However, it was not yet known what the technical specification for level four would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Demolition of existing vacant warehouse for three no. terraced town houses and associated parking facilities.

Ward: St. Nicholas

Demolition of existing vacant warehouse for three no. terraced town houses and associated parking facilities.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended an additional condition to require the development to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held, particularly as it provided members with the opportunity to view the relatively small footprint of the site.  She expressed concerns about the lack of amenity space, the design approach, and the potential impact of the access and parking arrangements on highway safety.  Therefore, she proposed that the application be refused.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, felt that the site needed to be redeveloped but felt that the design would be out of keeping with Barton Manor and the character of the street scene.  He also expressed concerns about highway safety.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the objections of the Conservation Area Panel mainly related to materials and the scheme had been revised since the comments were made.  He also advised that the development would be set back from the road in order to provide a pedestrian footpath along the frontage, with a rail to prevent accidental transgression into the road.

Councillor PJ Edwards, noting that development had to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, felt that the scale and design of this proposal would have a detrimental impact and supported the views of the Local Ward Members.  He also felt that it would be difficult to achieve safe access to and from the underground parking area and commented on the technical challenges of this element of the scheme.

In response to concerns expressed about highway safety, the Principal Planning Officer reported that the access and parking arrangements had been informed by pre-application discussions with the Traffic Manager, who had no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

Members debated the merits of the contemporary design approach and the potential impact on the Conservation Area setting.

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:

CW2007/2663/F

1.               The proposal by reason of its design and appearance would appear out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and furthermore the absence of private amenity space to serve the three bed dwellings proposed would lead to an inadequate level of residential amenity within the scheme contrary to Policies DR1, H13 and HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

CW2007/2634/F

1.                The proposal to demolish the warehouse is contrary to Policy HBA7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development as planning permission for its redevelopment has been refused.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Erection of 4 no. 2 bedroom dwellings.

Ward: St. Nicholas

Erection of 4 no. 2 bedroom dwellings.

The following update was reported:

·       A letter had been received from the applicant reiterating the comments made at the last meeting.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented on the constrained nature of the site and was concerned about the lack of amenity space.  Councillor Woodward noted the concerns of local residents about parking in the area and felt that a residents’ parking scheme should be introduced to alleviate the difficulties already being experienced there.  Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, supported these views.

The Principal Planning Officer suggested that members’ comments be passed to the Traffic Manager to highlight the concerns about parking and request that consideration be given to a residents’ parking scheme in the area.  He added that the scale of the development fell below the established threshold for negotiating financial contributions from the developer.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes said that this was a good use of a brownfield site and noted the level of demand for two-bedroom accommodation.  A number of other members spoke in support of the application but acknowledged the need to address the parking situation.

Councillor AT Oliver opposed the proposal as he felt that it represented an over-intensive form of development.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt it essential that a residents’ parking scheme be required through a condition to ensure that it was forthcoming.

The Principal Planning Officer recommended an additional condition to require the development to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

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.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

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

3.      E18 (No new windows in specified elevation) (rear and side).

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

4.      E19 (Obscure glazing to windows).

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

5.      F16 (Restriction of hours during construction).

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

6.      F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal).

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

7.      F22 (No surface water to public sewer).

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

8.      H11 (Parking - estate development (more than one house)).

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

9.      H27 (Parking for site operatives).

         Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety.

10.    The development shall be designed and constructed to meet level three of the Code for Sustainable Homes: A Step Change in Sustainable Home Building Practice Design dated December 2006 or equivalent standard as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.  No development shall commence until authorised certification has been provided confirming compliance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Proposed conversion of existing stone barn and attached ancillary building into 2 no. residential units.

Ward: Burghill, Holmer & Lyde

Proposed conversion of existing stone barn and attached ancillary building into 2 no. residential units.

Given claims made by a member of the public in a letter to Councillors, the Chairman invited Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, to comment.  Councillor Robertson advised that, in accordance with Code of Conduct, she had not indicated whether she supported or opposed the application prior to the meeting and contact with the applicant was limited to giving procedural advice.  The Legal Practice Manager advised that he had discussed the situation with Councillor Robertson and was satisfied that, on the information provided, the Councillor did not have a personal or prejudicial interest to declare.

The following updates were reported:

·             Correspondence had been received from the applicant in support of the application.

·             Four letters of support had been received.

·             An e-mail had been received from Mr. S. Vaughan which stated that the report was not correct as the whole scheme was for conversion with all the buildings being retained and that there were no extensions.

In response to the additional representations, the following officer comment was reported:

·             To enable the buildings to be converted into two dwellings the lean-to together with the corrugated addition are required to be substantially demolished and rebuilt therefore forming extensions to the main stone barn.  Your officers are therefore satisfied that the report accurately reflects the proposal before members.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Reynolds spoke on behalf of Burghill Parish Council and Mrs. Eagling spoke in support of the application.

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his work on this scheme.  Councillor Robertson noted that the Parish Plan had identified the need for affordable housing, particularly for young people who had been priced out of existing local housing, and this proposal provided the opportunity for the family concerned to live at the farm and manage the smallholding into the future.  She felt that the proposal, subject to appropriate mitigation measures, would not cause harm to the character of the farm complex or to the wider countryside and proposed that the application be supported.

Councillor RI Matthews concurred with the views of the Local Ward Member and noted that Burghill Parish Council had no objection to the application and local residents supported it.  He did not feel that conversion of the outbuildings would have a significant impact and said that a common sense approach needed to be taken to the policy considerations.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented that references to affordable housing were misleading as the development would be for the benefit of the family concerned rather than the wider community through a social housing provider.  However, he acknowledged the specific needs of the applicants and suggested that any planning permission granted be restricted to people working on the smallholding.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a personal condition or a condition preventing the dwellings being sold separately from each other could be imposed but did not feel that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Glazed porch to rear elevation.

Ward: Hagley

Glazed porch to rear elevation.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Wilson spoke on behalf of Bartestree and Lugwardine Group Parish Council and Mrs. Griffiths spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, noted the difficulties being experienced by the applicant as a result of the exposed elevation and felt that the introduction of a glazed porch was an acceptable solution.

Councillor RI Matthews felt that the recommended reason for refusal might not be defendable on appeal and that the porch was a practical way to reduce heat loss from the dwelling, subject to high quality materials and finishing.

Councillor MAF Hubbard commented that the photographs, displayed as part of the officer’s presentation, had illustrated why permitted development rights had been removed, in order to protect the architectural quality of the development and the importance of the wider setting.  He suggested that the applicant should contact the site developer about problems with the property.

Councillor AT Oliver noted the reasons why permitted development rights were removed on the original grant of planning permission and did not feel that there was a reason to reinstate them.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted the reasoning behind the recommendation of refusal but did not feel that the porch would be visually intrusive or compromise the integrity of the design approach.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that officers maintained the view that the design would not be in keeping with the existing elevation and would have a detrimental impact.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The proposed extension, by virtue of the detailed design, together with the careful and consistent composition of the existing elevation, is considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider terrace, in a manner contrary to Policy H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

Four polyhouses 17m x 5m for the production of ornamental vegetable plants etc.

Ward: Hollington

Four polyhouses 17m x 5m for the production of ornamental vegetable plants etc.

The following update was reported:

·             A letter of support from Paul Keetch MP had been received but with a recommendation that the number of polytunnels be reduced from 4 to 2 in order to reduce the visual impact.

In response to the additional representation, the following officer comment was reported:

·             The development as submitted for four polytunnels is considered acceptable in visual and landscape terms therefore no change is recommended.

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

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, commented on the sensitive landscape character of the area and felt that the proposal would have a detrimental visual impact; he added that wooden and glass greenhouses would be better than polytunnels.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the application, contrasted this scheme to the large-scale polytunnel developments elsewhere in the county, and commented on the need to encourage small-scale agricultural and horticultural enterprises.  Councillor MAF Hubbard concurred, wished the applicants success with the venture and, noting the concerns of the Local Ward Member, hoped that there might be opportunity for investment in less intrusive structures in the future.

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.      G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

3.      G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general)).

Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

4.      G10 (Retention of trees).

Reason: In order to preserve the character and amenities of the area.

5.      There shall be no sales of any produce or products directly from the site to visiting members of the public.

Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and sustainable development.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

Change of use from two flats (residential) to House in Multiple Occupation.

Ward: Aylestone

Change of use from two flats (residential) to House in Multiple Occupation [HMO]

The following updates were reported:

·             A plan has been received illustrating the capacity to create 7 parking spaces with a turning area.

·             A letter of objection had been received from Mr. Bolt and the main points were summarised.

·             E-mail correspondence had been received from Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, and the main points were summarised.  Councillor Wilcox felt that the application should be refused on the grounds that the change of use would be out-of-keeping and detrimental to the character of the area.

In response to the additional representations, the following officer comment was reported:

·             There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will cause any increased impact on local amenity or any tangible impact on the character of the area.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Bolt spoke in objection to the application.  Mr. Goldsworthy had registered to speak in support of the application but was not present at the meeting.

In response to some of the points raised, the Principal Planning Officer commented that the site was in a sustainable location, close to transport links and other local amenities.  He also commented that it could be difficult to sustain a refusal reason based on the impact on the character of the area as there was no distinct land use due the variety of commercial and residential uses in the locality; it was noted that no internal or external alterations were required to achieve the conversion.  It was noted that the change of use could increase general activity at the property but, given the proximity of a busy main road and footpath links, officers did not consider that an HMO would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor DW Greenow, referring to Councillor Wilcox’s representation, did not feel that any area was suitable for HMOs and considered such accommodation to be outdated.  He proposed that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and represented a form of over-development.  Councillor WJ Walling supported this view and questioned whether approval might make it more difficult to resist similar proposals in the future.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that HMO accommodation might not be ideal but, nevertheless, there was demand and drew attention to the submission from Private Sector Housing that ‘There is a shortage of this type of HMO accommodation in Herefordshire.  The property is large and will lend itself to multiple occupancy…’.  He felt that there needed to be a broad range of housing types throughout the city and commented on the desperate shortage of affordable accommodation for low paid workers.  Given these considerations, and the close proximity of the site to the city centre, he felt that the application should be approved.

The Principal Planning Officer commented on the lack of high quality shared houses in the Hereford for professional people.  He also commented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Proposed light industrial units for B2 and B8 use.

Ward: Hollington

Proposed light industrial units for B2 and B8 use.

Mr. Spreckley had registered to speak in support of the application but decided not to speak at the meeting.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, felt that the proposal was acceptable but questioned whether 24 parking spaces were needed for a development of this size, particularly given the cycle links to Hereford.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer reported that the parking provision was in line with current standards and that cycle storage was also proposed.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on the need for industrial buildings to be flexible and hoped that the applicant would consider a structure that could be expanded or contracted in the future, depending on the nature of the business to be accommodated.

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.      A09 (Amended plans) (6th December, 2007).

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

3.      B11 (Details of external finishes and cladding (industrial buildings)).

         Reason: To secure properly planned development.

4.      Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved full details of a flood evacuation plan and arrangements to ensure a flood free access route should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

         Reason: To ensure the availability of a flood free access route to enable access by emergency services and evacuation of people, vehicles and goods during flood events.

5.      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.

6.      H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision).

         Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure covered cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy.

7.      H30 (Travel plans).

         Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in combination with a scheme aimed at promoting the use of a range of sustainable transport initiatives.

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

2.      HN25 - Travel plans.

3.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

20th February, 2008

Wednesday 20th February, 2008.