To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors AJM Blackshaw, SPA Daniels, MD Lloyd-Hayes, RI Matthews and JE Pemberton.

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 Legal Practice Manager, drawing attention to agenda item 8, advised that he had made brief enquiries into the status of the Hereford Conservative Club and it appeared that the name of the club was historical and it was not politically affiliated.  Therefore, Conservative Councillors did not need to declare an interest on this specific issue, unless they had direct links with, or were members of, the club itself.

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 20th February, 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.

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

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

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, made the following comments:

·         The value of the site inspection that had been undertaken was noted.

·         There were difficulties associated with industrial uses close to residential properties.

·         Councillor Andrews felt that Building 1 (in the northwest corner of the site) was acceptable but Building 2 (in the southeast corner of the site) was not, due to the detrimental impact of the development on the privacy and residential amenity of adjoining properties.  Therefore, she proposed a split decision on this basis, to approve Building 1 but refuse Building 2.

·         Although Building 1 was considered acceptable, she asked for additional conditions to ensure that any hedges damaged during construction were replaced and for suitable treatments at the site to prevent gulls and other birds from using the buildings as roosting sites.

Councillor AM Toon, also a Local Ward Member, supported Councillor Andrews and felt that Building 2 would exacerbate the noise disturbance experienced by occupiers of adjacent properties and the proximity of the building would have a significant impact on residential amenity.

Councillor PJ Edwards acknowledged the concerns of the Local Ward Members, especially the proximity of Building 2 to the boundary with adjoining properties, but was concerned that a split decision might not be sustainable on appeal.  He suggested that additional conditions might make the development more acceptable to the immediate neighbours and noted that there were a number of ways to prevent birds from roosting on the buildings.

Councillor DB Wilcox drew attention to the comments of the Environmental Health & Trading Standards Manager and noted the need for the recommended conditions to be adhered to.  However, he also felt it imperative that noise limits were established in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents.  He questioned whether a split decision could be reached and suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant, specifically to ascertain whether they would be prepared to amend the application to omit Building 2.

The Development Control Manager responded to a number of issues raised by members as follows:

§             The site lay within a designated area safeguarded for B1, B2 and B8 employment purposes with the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

§             The proposed uses were considered compatible with residential areas; B1 related to offices or light industry appropriate to a residential area and B8 related to storage or distribution.

§             The main source of noise from such development tended to be from the parking and circulation area.  As the building was close to the boundary and doorways had been relocated, the building itself would act as a buffer to noise generated from this area.

§             He considered that the approval of one unit and the refusal of the other could be difficult to sustain on appeal.

§             The conditions could be reviewed to ensure that the noise attenuation measures and bird proofing were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

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

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

The Team Leader – Central provided the following updates:

§       The concerns of the Traffic Manager had now been addressed with the amended plans and, therefore, the objection had been removed.

§       The only outstanding matter was the submission of landscaping details.

§       Therefore, the wording of the recommendation was amended to omit reference to the objection of the Traffic Manager and replaced with reference to the submission of landscaping details and any other matters considered necessary by officers.

In response to comments made at the last meeting, the Team Leader – Central:

§       Explained how the footpaths and cycleways had been designed to be as permeable as possible throughout the development.

§       Advised that this final phase would be designed and constructed to a standard of Eco Homes ‘Very Good’.

§       Explained how the discount on the low cost market housing would remain in perpetuity.

Councillor ACR Chappell, a Local Ward Member, made a number of comments, including:

·         Attention was drawn to the existing and proposed education contributions in the locality and Councillor Chappell proposed that £100,000 of this be allocated to the LEA pool at Hollybush Walk for repairs and maintenance of the facility.

·         He commented on the need for adequate security for footpaths and cycleways, including measures to prevent motorbikes from using them and appropriate lighting.

·         He noted that a bus route would serve the development but the report did not provide bus shelter details, he felt that any bus shelters should be designed into the site from the outset.

·         He commented on frequent flooding problems caused by rainwater accumulating under the railway bridge on Bullingham Lane; he added that a motorist had been trapped by rising floodwater in the past.  Given that the development would significantly increase the number of vehicle movements in the locality, he felt that every effort should be made to resolve the problem.

·         He noted that complaints were already being received about parking in the area and asked that appropriate levels of off street parking be provided.

The Team Leader – Central responded as follows:

§       The Section 106 Agreement would require contributions towards community infrastructure under various headings, including education.  The issue of the LEA pool could be factored into the detail of the agreement.

§       The safety and security of the footpaths and cycleways were key considerations; the layout had been designed to maximise passive overlooking, additional lighting may be required in order to reach adoptable standards, and measures to restrict motorbikes could be explored further.

§       The Section 106 Agreement required a contribution towards bus stops and the Local Ward Members could be consulted on the specific design once further details became available.

§       The approach to the railway bridge on Bullingham Lane would be straightened as part of the plans and would provide a minor highway benefit in this location.

§       The parking ratio was two spaces per  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Erection of 2 no. two bedroom three persons flats and associated parking.

Erection of 2 no. two bedroom three persons flats and associated parking.

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, noted the concerns raised in the letters of objection about the potential impact on local amenity and felt that members would benefit from a site inspection.

Councillor PJ Edwards, also a Local Ward Member, commented that this proposal had come forward in response to concerns about anti-social behaviour arising from people gathering at this site.  He felt that many people in the locality would support the erection of two affordable residential units and he supported the officer’s report. 

A vote on the matter of a site inspection received an equal number of votes and the Chairman used a casting vote in favour of a site inspection.

RESOLVED:

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

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

[A] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary's office.

[B] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary’s office.

[A] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary's office.

[B] Conversion of parts of building to eight flats, relocation of manager’s flat and secretary’s office.

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

§       The draft Heads of Terms should also include the requirement for the payment to be index linked.

§       As the listed building consent had to be referred to the Secretary of State, delegated authority was sought to enable the decision to be issued subject to receipt of no objection from the Secretary of State.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Dr. Channon spoke in support of the application.

Councillor AM Toon asked for further clarification regarding members’ personal and prejudicial interests.  In response, the Legal Practice Manager advised that, although he had not been able to verify the information provided in good faith, he had made reasonable enquiries which implied that the club was not politically affiliated.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, commented on the intrinsic beauty and historical value of the Grade II* Listed Building.  In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the key differences between this proposal and previous schemes (one withdrawn and one rejected) related to the impact on the integrity of the late medieval hall and later plaster ceiling, and the retention of room proportions.

Councillor NL Vaughan noted that a car-free approach was being taken but, as occupiers would probably want access to vehicles, this could have a consequential impact on car parks in the city centre.  Nevertheless, subject to all conditions considered necessary, he supported the application.

Councillor DB Wilcox also supported the application but, noting that people with disabilities preferred city centre locations, suggested an additional condition to require a parking area for a powered mobility vehicle.  Councillor Wilcox noted that the Traffic Manager had requested a contribution of £11,720 and the Parks and Countryside Manager had requested £5,040, and he questioned why a contribution of only £5,000 was being sought from the developer.

In response to these points, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

§             A parking area would be difficult to achieve given the confines of the site but this could be discussed with the applicant.

§             Negotiations on the level of contribution had been ongoing for some time and, as the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations [SPD] would not be active until 1st April 2008, it was not considered reasonable to require further contributions at this stage.  The Development Control Manager advised that officers considered the contribution to be reasonable given the relative costs involved in undertaking the sensitive conversion of a Grade II* Listed Building.

Councillor Wilcox felt that further discussions should be held with the applicant on both the mobility parking and contribution issues.  Other members expressed similar views.

The Team Leader - Central advised that there were certain exclusions in the SPD in respect of conversions in the central shopping area.  Some members questioned the fairness of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

[A] Redevelopment of The Cathedral Close with new landscape proposals, lighting, seating, paths, fences, railings and gates.

[B] Erection of new piers, railings and gates at nos. 1 & 2 Cathedral Close, relocation of Castle Street gate pier.  New gate to college cloisters, repair of the Cathedral Barn.

[A] Redevelopment of The Cathedral Close with new landscape proposals, lighting, seating, paths, fences, railings and gates.

[B] Erection of new piers, railings and gates at nos. 1 & 2 Cathedral Close, relocation of Castle Street gate pier.  New gate to college cloisters, repair of the Cathedral Barn.

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

§       The Archaeological Advisor had confirmed that he had received acceptable details relating to the ground works methodology, his comments were summarised and standard conditions were recommended.

§       Consequently, the wording of the recommendation was amended to omit reference to outstanding archaeological issues.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Very Reverend Michael Tavinor, Dean of Hereford, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of matters, including:

·       The proposals had taken a long time to formulate but now addressed many of the concerns raised by local people initially.

·       Anti-social behaviour had been a problem in the Close and the introduction of railings would help to re-establish the space as a sacred place and change attitudes towards it.

·       He noted that the close was a crucial cycle link in the city and felt that this should be retained.  He noted that the realigned paths would improve visibility and help to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists.

·       Whilst he was supportive of the scheme, he felt that it was very sad that the porch areas would be gated and closed at night, particularly given the tradition of cathedrals acting as places of refuge.

Councillor DW Greenow supported the views of the Local Ward Member and felt that the high quality proposals would complement the character of the historic environment.

Councillor ACR Chappell noted the importance of tourism to the area and felt that the proposals were exciting and would result in a major enhancement of the site.  He supported the comments of the Local Ward Member about cycling and sympathised with his views on the porch gates but noted the need to keep the areas in good order; he added that there should be access to more appropriate forms of shelter elsewhere.  He fully supported the scheme and hoped that it could be progressed as soon as possible.

Councillor PA Andrews supported the proposals but noted that many pedestrians were unhappy about inconsiderate cyclists using the Close and felt that the risks needed to be addressed.

The Legal Practice Manager advised that an agreement between the Cathedral Chapter and Herefordshire Council regarding the future maintenance of the Close had been agreed the previous week.

Councillor NL Vaughan said that inconsiderate cyclists had been a problem for Cathedral School pupils crossing the Close for a long time.  He sympathised with the views expressed about the porch gates but noted the problems being experienced with anti-social behaviour and drug abuse.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the area was in poor condition and felt that the proposals would significantly enhance the Close and the setting of the Cathedral.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

[A] Erection of 6 No apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[B] Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[A] Erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

[B] Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. apartments in two storey form together with associated car parking.

The Team Leader – Central provided the following updates:

§             A letter had been received from the applicants advising that they were prepared to contribute towards the cost of investigating and, if the criteria was met, implementing a Traffic Regulation Order to provide double yellow lines along the widened section of Walney Lane.

§             Therefore, delegated authority was requested to either prepare and complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act or if deemed appropriate, insert an extra condition requiring the submission of a planning obligation prior to the commencement of the development.  This obligation would require the developer to pay Herefordshire Council, upon the commencement of the development, the sum of £6,000 for the investigation and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order.

Councillor NL Vaughan, a Local Ward Member, noted that the widening of Walney Lane had resulted in indiscriminate parking and he felt that this application would exacerbate the situation and should be refused.

Councillor DB Wilcox, the other Local Ward Member, thanked the officer for his work on this application and for the negotiations with the applicant.  Nevertheless, he considered that the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site, particularly given that the area was characterised by large detached properties set back from the road.  He felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area, on the adjacent listed building and on the character of Walney Lane.  If any planning permission was granted, however, he felt that the number of parking spaces should be increased to at least nine; with the use of Grasscrete or similar to minimise visual impact.

Councillor PJ Edwards acknowledged the concerns of the Local Ward Members and the difficulties associated with balancing Conservation Area considerations with modern demands.  Drawing attention to the comments of the Conservation Manager and to the recommended conditions, he felt that the application was acceptable on balance.  He felt that any approval should include: additional car parking; cycle parking; parking for motorised mobility vehicles; and a scheme of refuse storage.

Councillor PA Andrews said that the Conservation Area should be protected and commented on the impact of the loss of older properties and the erection of flats on other roads in the locality, especially in Folly Lane.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted that there were other apartment buildings in the area and did not feel that there were any reasons to warrant refusal of this proposal.

In response to comments made by members, the Team Leader – Central advised that:

§             The introduction of double yellow lines had been discussed before Walney Lane was widened but, in order to protect the rural nature of the lane, was not pursued at that time.  However, indiscriminate parking had become an issue and parking restrictions were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Proposed single storey side/rear extension and new detached garage.

Proposed single storey side/rear extension and new detached garage.

The Team Leader – Central provided the following update:

§             The consultation period had expired and, therefore, the recommendation was amended to omit reference to the consultation period.

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

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, noted that Sutton Parish Council had raised an objection to the detached garage element of the scheme and she drew attention to the concerns of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, particularly with regard to visual impact, loss of light and noise disturbance.

Councillor AM Toon felt that the proposal would be in keeping with the surroundings and did not feel that there were any reasons to warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance.

In response to a question from Councillor WJ Walling, the Legal Practice Manager explained the purpose of restrictive covenants but noted that they were not material planning considerations.

RESOLVED:

That the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

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.      B06 (Matching stonework/brickwork).

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

3.      E17 (No windows in side elevation of extension).

         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.      H12 (Parking and turning - single house).

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

Informatives:

1.      N03 - Adjoining property rights.

2.      N14 - Party Wall Act 1996.

3.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

Proposed three bedroom detached dwelling with parking for one vehicle.

Proposed three bedroom detached dwelling with parking for one vehicle.

The Team Leader – Central provided the following updates:

§             An amended parking plan had been received from the applicant’s agent.

§             The Traffic Manager had confirmed no objection to the amended plan.  Therefore, the recommendation was amended to omit reference to the Traffic Manager’s concerns.

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

Councillor DJ Benjamin, a Local Ward Member, noted the narrowness of the site but, given the outline planning permission and the inclusion of an off street parking space, supported the officer’s report.

Councillor JD Woodward, the other Local Ward Member, felt that the loss of on street parking space was unfortunate but supported the proposed development.

In response to a question from Councillor PJ Edwards, the Team Leader – Central explained that the footprint of the development had been amended to enable safe vehicular egress from the site.

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the Team Leader – Central advised that, as the Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations would not be active until 1st April 2008, it would be unreasonable to require contributions from this development.

RESOLVED:

Subject to no further objections raising additional material planning considerations by the end of the consultation period, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers:

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.      E16 (Removal of permitted development rights).

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to control any future development within the curtilage of the property in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring 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.      F22 (No surface water to public sewer).

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

7.      F48 (Details of slab levels).

Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

8.      G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

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

9.      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.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

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

Retention of and change of use of hard standing for caravans with associated drainage works.  (Retrospective).

Retention of and change of use of hard standing for caravans with associated drainage works.  (Retrospective).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Major Allin spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, noted that this retrospective development was quite controversial in the locality and he expressed concerns about traffic impact and the diminution of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [AONB].

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the use of the land for the siting of up to five touring caravans enjoyed permitted development rights, subject to obtaining an exemption certificate from the Caravanning and Camping Club.  However, given the potential impact on the AONB, Councillor Edwards questioned whether a condition could restrict the maximum number of caravans to five.

The Development Control Manager emphasised that the development applied for was the retention of hardstanding and other infrastructure and, as these elements were not pre-requisite to obtaining a five-caravan exemption certificate, refusal of planning permission would not prevent caravans from using the site.  However, he advised that this application provided the opportunity to control the development and drew attention to the recommended conditions; including E35 (Caravan Numbers Limitation).

Councillor Edwards asked that a letter be sent to applicant to highlight the Sub-Committee’s concerns.  Councillor Dawe supported this suggestion.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      F18 (Scheme of foul drainage disposal).

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

2.      F39 (Scheme of refuse storage).

         Reason: In the interests of amenity.

3.      E35 (Caravan Numbers limitation).

         Reason: To clarify the terms of the permission and minimise visual intrusion.

4.      G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)).

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

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

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

6.      H05 (Access gates).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7.      H06 (Vehicular access construction).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8.      E34 (Removal of touring caravans during winter months).

         Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area during the winter months.

Informatives:

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

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.

16th April, 2008

14th May, 2008

16th April, 2008

14th May, 2008