To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors MD Lloyd-Hayes, RI Matthews, AM Toon and NL Vaughan.  Apologies were also received from Councillor RV Stockton (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.

Referring to minute 113 [DCCE2007/3249/F, Hampton Grange Nursing Home], Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the minutes made reference to his comment that ‘(solar) panels should be required as part of any planning permission granted’ but a condition had not been included to this effect.  The Central Team Leader said that he would check whether the condition had been included in the decision notice and advise the member accordingly.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held 23rd January, 2008 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.

MR S WITHERS – CENTRAL TEAM LEADER

The Chairman advised that this was the last Sub-Committee meeting to be attended by Mr. Withers, Central Team Leader, prior to him taking a position with ESG Herefordshire Ltd.  The Chairman praised Mr. Withers’ professionalism and other attributes.  The Sub-Committee wished him well in his new position.

Proposed southern extension to operations.

Wards: Sutton Walls and Wormsley Ridge

Proposed southern extension to operations.

The following update was reported:

·       Correspondence had been received from Wellington Parish Council which raised issues about public footpaths near the site and suggesting that, once restored to nature conservation after operations had ceased, the land be passed to the Parish Council for management.

In response to the additional representation, the Principal Planning Officer (Minerals & Waste) advised:

·       The footpaths did not cross this particular site and, as there were other procedures for dealing with public rights of way, the matter was not relevant to the determination of this application;

·       There were numerous recommended conditions in respect of landscaping, restoration, aftercare and afteruse of the site.  Whilst the comments of the Parish Council were noted, it was not for the planning authority to decide who would manage the area in the future; and

·       The purpose of the application was to extend the quarry both in area and working time but would not increase the rate of extraction.  This would effectively take the permission up to 2026, coinciding with local and regional policy periods, and the quarry would provide for the county’s needs for that time.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer (Minerals & Waste) for the detailed report and comprehensive recommendation.

Councillor KS Guthrie, Local Ward Member for Sutton Walls, said that the Local Ward Members had recently visited the site with officers.  Councillor Guthrie commented on the measures to control dust and noted that noise from the central workings, whilst being quite loud close to the machine making concrete blocks, was minimal at the boundaries of the site.  Given the mitigation measures proposed, Councillor Guthrie supported the application.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw, Local Ward Member for Wormsley Ridge, welcomed the report and made the following points:

§             He noted on the benefits of making concrete blocks at the place where the materials were extracted.

§             He noted that the proposal was supported by Advantage West Midlands in principle and conformed with the Regional Spatial Strategy.

§             He commented that the position of the site, near to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the high water table limited the potential after uses of the land.  Nevertheless, he asked that further consideration be given to the future use and management of the land.  He felt that, through the involvement of the Parish Council in the future management of the area, the applicant could compensate the parish for the disturbance caused by years of excavation and the dust and noise generated by the additional traffic on the A49 and Marden Lane.

§             He reported on the poor state of Marden Lane and felt that the lane should be resurfaced as a matter of urgency.

§             Subject to the identified ecology and bio-diversity measures, he felt that the application could be supported.

Councillor SJ Robertson commented on the shortage of areas for water sports in the county and felt that, once restored, this site could provide opportunities for conservation and leisure activities.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Erection of glasshouse.

Ward: Hollington

Erection of glasshouse.

The following updates were reported:

·       Further comments had been received from the Traffic Manager as follows:

‘The road network is adequate to serve the existing farming practices and the glasshouse.  However, it would be undesirable for there to be a significant increase in vehicle movements without improvements to the access and highway network.’

·       A further letter had been received from the applicant’s agent which:

i.               Re-iterated points made in the report and noted that the proposal accorded with the relevant landscape policies.

ii.             Commented that the development was small scale and comparable in scale to other barns in the locality, 80% of the crops grown in the glasshouse would supply local distributors and shops, the development would make a contribution to the rural economy and the glasshouse was preferable to polytunnels.

iii.            Commented that the extant permissions for glasshouses elsewhere on the holding were no longer required and therefore there was no objection to these permissions being rescinded.

iv.           Stated that a condition restricting farm sales would not be appropriate and the glasshouse would not materially affect the level of farm sales.

In response to the additional representations, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·       The rescinding of the extant permission for the glasshouses elsewhere within the holding would reduce the number of potential structures on the holding in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [AONB].  Therefore, a change to the recommendation was suggested to enable the preparation and completion of a legal agreement to rescind the two extant agricultural notifications for glasshouses.

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

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, noted the importance of the AONB and commented on concerns in the locality that the numerous structures at the site had already had a detrimental visual impact on the intrinsic quality of the landscape.  He said that he was not unsympathetic to the applicant’s business but felt that this proposal would represent a significant intrusion into the landscape.  He did not feel that the mitigation proposed would adequately screen the glasshouse, particularly in the winter months and especially as the landscaping scheme would take a number of years to mature.

In response to a question from the Legal Practice Manager, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the two extant permissions for glasshouses were in more elevated locations.

Councillor DW Greenow noted the extensive planning history of the site and felt that the applicant had gone to great lengths to the address concerns that had been raised.  He commented that some of the issues raised in the letters of objection were overstated or could be overcome, in particular he drew attention to recommended condition 6 which would prevent the artificial illumination or heating of the glasshouse without prior approval.  Referring to the applicant’s statement that 80% of the crops grown would supply local distributors and shops, Councillor Greenow felt that the proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

A development of 151 dwellings consisting of 2,3,4 & 5 bedroom houses with 1+2 bedroom apartments (Phase 3).

Ward: St. Martins & Hinton

A development of 151 dwellings consisting of 2,3,4 & 5 bedroom houses with 1+2 bedroom apartments (Phase 3).

The following updates were reported:

·       Amended plans had been received seeking to address the concerns of officers but there had been insufficient time to assess the detail and therefore the recommendation remained one of delegated approval as set out in the report.

·       Paragraph 6.17 of the report was incorrect in that the total area of open space, sport and recreation facilities was 4.15 hectares and not 2.45 hectares as stated.

·       The Highways Agency had withdrawn their objection following the receipt of additional information to justify the additional level of parking proposed.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillor AT Oliver, who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of this item, addressed the Sub-Committee before withdrawing from the meeting for the ensuing debate and vote.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Owen spoke on behalf of Lower Bullingham Parish Council.

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, noted that the principle and density of development had been established in the outline planning permissions and through the Unitary Development Plan [UDP] process.  Councillor Attfield commented that there would be some community benefits, particularly in terms of affordable housing and play areas, but noted that the contributions would have been greater if this was an entirely new proposal.  She expressed concerns about additional traffic queuing on Bullingham Lane but noted that traffic lights on the junction with the A49 should mitigate some of the problems; although it was noted that this would have a consequential impact on the free flow of traffic on the A49.  Councillor Attfield also expressed concerns about the increasing urbanisation of this area without the necessary infrastructure to support it.

Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, drew attention to the representation from Hereford City Council stating that it ‘Objects to the over development of this site that will have an adverse effect on the already over used A49’.  Given the existing problems with the A49, he felt that further large-scale development in this area was unsustainable.  He commented on drainage and flooding problems associated with the Withy Brook and suggested that an additional condition should be added to any planning permission granted requiring the brook to be cleared out at least once a year.  He reported on the parking problems already being experienced in the area, resulting from the high density of development, and felt that a minimum of two spaces per unit was necessary.  It was noted that, initially, the local community had been told that 500 houses would be constructed.  Now that the total would be over 600 houses, Councillor Chappell felt that the developer contributions towards community infrastructure should be enhanced.

Councillor AT Oliver commented on the difficulty of turning right from Bullingham Lane onto the A49 and was surprised that the Highways Agency had not maintained its objection to this development.

In response to the points raised by members,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Proposed development of two buildings (4 units) for small business B1 and B8 use - light industrial.

Ward: Three Elms

Proposed development of two buildings (4 units) for small business B1 and B8 use - light industrial.

The following updates were reported:

·       The applicant’s agent had confirmed that Marshall Business Centre was presently comprised of 10 office suites and 7 light industrial/storage units.

·       Welsh Water had raised no objection but suggested the use of drainage conditions.

·       The Parish of Hereford City Council had raised no objection to the revised plans.

·       In response to consultation on the revised plans, 5 letters of objection had been received and the comments were summarised.

·       A petition signed by 28 people had been received, stating that the revisions would be of no advantage to residents of Grandstand Road or Armdale Close.

In response to the additional representations, the Principal Planning Officer advised:

·       The comments of Welsh Water were noted and considered reasonable, therefore appropriate drainage conditions and an informative were recommended.

·       The distances referred to in the report had been estimated using an Ordnance Survey database but this was now understood to be out-of-date and inaccurate.

·       It was noted that the site was within a designated area safeguarded for employment purposes and the amendments to the design of the buildings, in response to concerns raised in the letters of objection, were highlighted.

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

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, commented on the proximity of the site to established residential properties.  Councillor Andrews did not feel that members could appreciate the dimensions of the site through photographs and proposed that a site inspection be held.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw sympathised with the public speaker but also noted that the site was located in an employment area.  He considered that a site inspection was warranted in the circumstances.

Councillor SPA Daniels, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection, particularly given the discrepancies that had arisen about the distances involved.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection for the following reasons:

§       the character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration;

§       a judgement is required on visual impact;

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

19th March, 2008

16th April, 2008

14th May, 2008

19th March, 2008

16th April, 2008

14th May, 2008