To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors SPA Daniels and MD Lloyd-Hayes.

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.

93.   DCCW2008/2035/F - British Telecom Building, Barton Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0JT [Agenda Item 7] 

Councillor AP Taylor; Personal.

96.   DCCW2008/1681/F - 9-11 Tower Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0LF [Agenda Item 10] 

Councillor PA Andrews; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of item.

M Willmont, Central Team Leader; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of the item.

98.   DCCE2008/2816/F - 10 Kyrle Street, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 2ET [Agenda Item 12]

Councillor MAF Hubbard; Prejudicial; Declared the interest at the start of the item, spoke in accordance with the Constitution and then withdrew from the remainder of the meeting.

Councillor SJ Robertson; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Councillor DB Wilcox; Personal

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

Referring to Minute 79 [DCCW2008/1832/N - Upper House Farm, Moreton-on-Lugg, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 8AH], Councillor SJ Robertson said that her comments and the reasons for refusal should include reference to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 (UDP) Policy ARCH5 (Sites of Lesser Regional or Local Importance).

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2008 be approved as a correct record.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report about the Council's position in relation to the planning appeals for the central area.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report about the Council's position in relation to the Section 106 Agreements for the central area.

A number of members welcomed this new report.  It was suggested that more detail might be required on occasion and where appropriate.   It was also suggested that the overall position could be reviewed annually.

Construction of three detached dwellings.

Construction of three detached dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         A further letter had been received from Burcott House Management Ltd requesting further information regarding the proposed drainage.

·         A further letter had been received from Mrs. Watkins of 125 Aylestone Hill re-iterating previous objections regarding impact on the Conservation Area, highway safety, amenity, the Section 106 contributions and the principle of residential development on the site.

·         A further e-mail from the applicant's agent had been received stating that the parking/turning area was proposed to be rolled scalpings as opposed to loose gravel and a highway mirror could be installed on the applicant's land to improve intervisibility of the access to the site.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         Rolled scalpings would provide a permeable hard surface but would minimise noise arising from vehicles and the mirror would address the concerns of the nearest neighbour regarding the safety of accessing/exiting their driveway.

§         The recommendation had been amended to include additional conditions requiring the mirror to be installed and the completion of the Section 106 Agreement prior to the commencement of the development, rather than prior to issuing the planning permission.

In response to questions from Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted the location of the Aylestone Park viewing point and explained the surface water drainage arrangements; including rainwater harvesting with overflow to a balancing pond with the likely run-off rate reduced below existing green field run-off rates from the site.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that there had not been any specific consultations required regarding the drainage arrangements but recommended condition 14 would require technical details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. 

Councillor Wilcox noted the environmental credentials of the design, that mains drainage connection was necessary, and that as ‘white land’ in the UDP the site had not been specifically identified for residential development.  He commented on the value of the site inspection that had been undertaken, particularly given the elevated position of the application site and its proximity to Aylestone Park.  Councillor Wilcox said that the designs were innovative and exciting but he felt that scheme was not in keeping with the character of this area.  Therefore, he proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the amenity of the area, would detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would have an unacceptable impact on Aylestone Park, particularly on the outlook from the viewing point.

Councillor NL Vaughan, the other Local Ward Member, felt that relevant agencies should be consulted on the drainage arrangements given that existing dwellings in the area suffered from flooding and that this scheme could exacerbate the problems.  He also felt that it was unacceptable that, despite the widening of the access track, the access would still not be to full adoptable standards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Change of use from B1 offices to Police offices (Retrospective).

Change of use from B1 offices to Police offices (Retrospective).

The Central Team Leader noted that, at the meeting held on 1 October 2008, the Sub-Committee had resolved that consideration of the application ‘be deferred for further discussions with the applicant, in consultation with the Local Ward Members and the Chairman’ [Minute 61 of 2008/09 refers].  He advised that the applicant had now submitted a Travel Plan but officers had not yet taken the opportunity to discuss the matter with the members.  Therefore, it was recommended that the application be deferred again.  The Local Ward Members supported this.

RESOLVED:   That consideration of the application be deferred.

Removal / variation of condition 10 of planning application DCCW2001/1848/F.

Removal / variation of condition 10 of planning application DCCW2001/1848/F.

The Central Team Leader explained the planning history of the site, the purpose of the application and reported that the Council's Environmental Health Officer had assessed the noise report submitted with the application which confirmed that there will be no discernible increase in noise levels to the detriment of adjoining residential properties.

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

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, did not consider that the business case for the extension of hours had been proven and said that she had not witnessed any shortages of fuel at the filling station.  Therefore, Councillor Davies did not feel that there was any reason to alter the existing delivery times.

Councillor GA Powell, also a Local Ward Member, concurred and commented that the noise and fumes from the filling station had significant impacts on residential amenity.

Councillor PJ Edwards considered that there was a case for refusing the application as being contrary to UDP Polices DR1 (Design), DR2 (Land Use and Activity), DR9 (Air Quality) and DR12 (Hazardous Substances).  He felt that the proposed extension of hours was excessive and unjustified; he added that, despite long periods of discounted prices, he had not witnessed any periods when the filling station had run out of fuel and the only deficiencies occurred during a strike by tanker drivers.  He also outlined problems with general management issues, such as litter, and commented on vapours and noise from the site, with extractor fans operating throughout the night.  However, if the Sub-Committee was minded to approve the application, Councillor Edwards felt that any extension should be limited to increased hours on Saturday afternoons only to address the concern about potential shortages at weekends and Bank Holidays.

A number of members supported the views of the Local Ward Members, commented on the disruption to local residents and questioned the need to extend the hours to the level proposed.  In response to a question, the Central Team Leader advised that the application sought more flexibility in delivery times and it was not anticipated that it would result in more fuel tanker traffic to the filling station.  The Central Team Leader also reminded the Sub-Committee that the noise report identified that the noise associated with delivery events did not exceed background noise levels.

Councillor AM Toon questioned whether refusal of planning permission could be sustained on appeal and suggested that a modest increase in hours could be granted to meet operational requirements, with the same 1000 - 1600 hours provision on Saturdays as was permitted on Sundays.  Councillor Toon noted the concerns about air quality, particularly for residents with children, and felt that an extension of hours into the evening was unacceptable.

Councillor MAF Hubbard questioned the times when the noise assessments had been undertaken and felt that the impact on residential amenity should not be underestimated.

Councillor Edwards noted that an extension on Saturdays might  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Demolish existing garage and replace with single storey extension and minor alterations to off road parking area.

Demolish existing garage and replace with single storey extension and minor alterations to off road parking area.

It was recommended that the application be deferred pending clarification about matters of land ownership.

RESOLVED:            That consideration of the application be deferred.

Conversion of existing retirement residential home and self contained basement flat into nine self contained flats/apartments.

Conversion of existing retirement residential home and self contained basement flat into nine self contained flats / apartments.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that correspondence had been received from the applicant's agent confirming agreement to the Section 106 Heads of Terms (as amended to net off the existing basement flat).  The Sub-Committee was advised that:

§         A further section of the existing rear single storey extension would have to be removed to accommodate two of the parking spaces and therefore an amended ground floor plan was required identifying this change.

§         The recommendation had been amended to include additional conditions requiring a Section 106 Agreement to be completed prior to the commencement of the development, an amendment to the Heads of Terms to take off one two bedroom flat, and an amended ground floor plan.  Therefore, delegated authority was requested to issue the permission subject to the points above.

The Principal Planning Officer also outlined the parking and access arrangements.

Councillors JD Woodward and DJ Benjamin, the Local Ward Members, noted the concerns of local residents, particularly the lack of amenity space, and considered that the Sub-Committee would benefit from 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.

Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

The Central Team Leader explained the policy considerations and recommended reason for refusal of planning permission.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Litherland had registered to speak in support of the application but felt unable to present her views and, therefore, the Legal Practice Manager read out a statement on her behalf.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, commented on the attractive nature of the cottage and surrounding countryside which was opposite the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjoined a special wildlife site.  He drew attention to the comment in the officer’s appraisal that ‘The proposal does not comply with Policy H18.  The extension would more than double the size of the existing building…’.  Councillor Dawe said that he was sympathetic to the personal circumstances of the applicant but recognised the policy constraints and felt that the proposed extension was too excessive; he added that a more modest extension might be appropriate.  He noted the concerns expressed by Holme Lacy Parish Council about an earlier proposal and he commented on the need to retain smaller dwellings in rural areas. 

Councillor PJ Edwards concurred with the views of the Local Ward Member and questioned whether the applicant could submit a revised scheme without charge should the application be refused.  The Central Team Leader advised that the regulations governing application fees permitted an additional submission within twelve months but this was the second submission in this particular case.

The Chairman commented on the limited size of the cottage and noted that it would be difficult to achieve a suitable level of accommodation without some form of extension.

Councillor RI Matthews drew attention to the seven letters that had been received in support of the proposal and noted that Holme Lacy Parish Council and Bolstone Parish Council had not raised any objections to the revised scheme.

Councillor H Davies outlined the difficulties experienced by disabled people and carers in regular sized accommodation and she felt that the cottage needed to be extended in some way to address the issues.

In response to comments by members, the Chairman clarified that a number of revisions had been made to the scheme and, therefore, a number of responses had been received from local parish councils.

Councillor AM Toon noted that there was a need for a decent level of habitable accommodation and proposed that a site inspection be undertaken in order for members to get a better perspective about the dimensions and setting of the cottage.

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.

Continuation of use of yard at 10 Kyrle Street for the storage, movement and operation of 4 mobile coffee carts, 1 freezer cart, 1 fridge cart and 4 non HGV associated support vehicles.

Continuation of use of yard at 10 Kyrle Street for the storage, movement and operation of 4 mobile coffee carts, 1 freezer cart, 1 fridge cart and 4 non HGV associated support vehicles.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the planning history of the site and advised that this application sought permanent permission following a two-year ‘trial period’ [application DCCE2006/3614/F refers].

Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Local Ward Member, declared a prejudicial interest at the start of the item but, in accordance with the Constitution [Appendix 12, Members Code of Conduct, Part 2, paragraph 12 (2)], wished to exercise the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes before withdrawing from the meeting.  Councillor Hubbard commented that there was an established mixture of residential and business uses in this area, that there was already significant background noise in the locality, and that the two-year trial period had only resulted in two complaints from one neighbouring property; with no statutory nuisance established in either instance.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Watkins spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the occupants of 12 Kyrle Street and Mr. Rawlings spoke in support of the application.

Councillor ACR Chappell said that the temporary permission had not revealed any justifiable reasons for refusal of permanent planning permission.  He commented on the mixed characteristics of the surrounding area and noted there were numerous noise generating businesses in the locality.  He also noted that the terms of the licence from Herefordshire Council, to operate a coffee cart in Hereford High Town, necessitated a departure of one cart from the site at 06.00.  Therefore, he supported the application.

Councilor AM Toon noted that, although no statutory nuisance had been identified during the temporary permission, early morning operations inconvenienced local residents.  She considered that, with this application, a limit had been reached in the potential of this site to accommodate the business and suggested that the applicant might need to consider moving it to an industrial estate if further expansion was contemplated.

Councillor PJ Edwards questioned whether Permitted Development Rights could be removed to prevent any further intensification of use and, noting that there had been a complaint about noise from trailers scraping the pavement, suggested that the applicant be required to consider options for the escarpment of the access.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the detailed description of the application meant that any proposed future development would require another planning application and, to reinforce this position, the numbers of carts and associated support vehicles permitted could be specified in the conditions.  He also said that an informative note could be added to the decision notice to highlight the need to address the escarpment of the access.

In response to questions from Councillor AP Taylor, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the application site was clearly defined and any possible changes of use associated with other premises or parking areas would need to be investigated separately.

Councillor DB Wilcox noted the problems often associated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

4 February 2009

4 March 2009

1 April 2009

4 February 2009

4 March 2009

1 April 2009