To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors WU Attfield, AJM Blackshaw, ACR Chappell, MD Lloyd-Hayes, GA Powell, AM Toon and WJ Walling.

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.

104.   DCCW2008/1681/F - 9-11 Tower Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0LF [Agenda Item 6]

Councillor PA Andrews; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of item; Reason: Lives nearby.

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

K Bishop, Principal Planning Officer; Personal; Left the meeting for the duration of the item.

106.   DCCW2008/2035/F - British Telecom Building, Barton Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0JT [Agenda Item 8]

Councillor SPA Daniels; Personal; Reason: Husband engaged in work for the police.

Councillor AP Taylor; Personal; Reason: Former BT employee.

Councillor RI Matthews; Personal; Reason: Served with police.

107.   DCCW2008/2608/O – Attwood Farm, Attwood Lane, Holmer, Herefordshire, HR1 1LJ [Agenda Item 9]

Councillor SJ Robertson; Prejudicial; Declared the interest at the start of the item, spoke in accordance with the Constitution and then withdrew for the remainder of the item; Reason: Applicant's agent was known to the member through parish council and due to architectural work undertaken on behalf of charity and parents.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2009 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.

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         An amended plan had been submitted identifying the removal of the rear single storey extension in its entirety, removal of the external steps on the eastern elevation and reduction in the number of units from nine to eight.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         The amended plans largely addressed the issues detailed in the report in that additional space would now be available for access, parking and manoeuvring and one parking space per unit would now be available.

§         In view of the late receipt of the amended plans, delegated authority was requested to amend the site layout to reflect the changes to the building and amend the Section 106 Heads of Terms to reflect the reduction in the number of units.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, commented that the site inspection had revealed the restricted room available for the manoeuvring of vehicles and the limited communal space.  She said that her principal concerns related to the standard of accommodation within the basement and the parking arrangements, particularly given the problems with on-street parking in the area and related highway safety issues.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, noted that the site adjoined Broomy Hill Conservation Area and commented on the parking problems in the locality.  He considered that the proposal was over intensive and that seven flats might be more appropriate.

Councillor PJ Edwards drew attention to the reported comments of the Transportation Manager about the parking space standards; that '...although [he] would not wish to see displacement of parking onto the street, these are maximum figures and may not substantiate a refusal on the grounds of lack of parking alone...'.  Councillor Edwards said that he had concerns about the practicalities of the one-way system for parking but noted that the removal of the extension should assist vehicle movements.  However, he questioned whether the adjustment could compromise floor space in some of the flats.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the removal of the extension would provide adequate space for the one-way system to operate successfully.  He explained that there was no minimum standard for parking spaces and that one parking space per unit was considered acceptable given the sustainable location of the site and accessibility to public transport.  He also advised there was no amenity space standard.

Councillor MAF Hubbard suggested that, in view of the concerns about parking and given the number of spaces was below the maximum standard of 1.5 spaces per unit, the developer should be required to enter into a legal agreement worded so as to prevent future occupants of the development from becoming eligible for residents' parking permits.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that such a restriction had been incorporated into Section 106 Agreements for other developments.

Councillor DB Wilcox  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

Alterations and two storey extension to existing house.

The Chairman noted the value of the site inspection that had been held.

The Central Team Leader provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda and are summarised below:

·         A response had been received from Ballingham, Bolstone and Hentland Group Parish Council.  This stated that although there would be a breach of Policy H18 the application was supported given: the current property was small, there would not be a significant visual impact, the circumstances of the applicant and in the future the property would be suitable for a family.

·         A letter had been received from the applicant.  This considered that the report was misleading with reference to the views of Holme Lacy Parish Council, points out that there was support from the Parish Councils of Bolstone, Ballingham, Hentland, Hoarwithy and Holme Lacy and other letters of support.  It also referred to the processing of this and an earlier application, the negotiations involved and e-mail correspondence between her, her agent and Officers.

The Central Team Leader advised that:

§         The Report was clear with regard to the response from Holme Lacy Parish Council (paragraph 5.2).  It reported their view on the current scheme and also reported their view on the scheme as originally submitted.

§         There was an error in the Report, at paragraph 6.3, which stated that the floor area as proposed was in the order of 160 sq m.  This was not correct, the figure should be 180 sq m.

Councillor PJ Edwards sympathised with the situation of the applicant but, noting the humble origins and idyllic position of the cottage, considered that the proposed extension would dominate the original building and he endorsed the recommendation of refusal by officers.

Councillor AT Oliver noted the purpose of planning policies, the need for fairness and consistency, that the proposal did not comply with UDP Policy H18, and the need to retain smaller dwellings in rural areas for persons of modest means.

The Chairman said that each application had to be considered on its own merits and noted that the cottage was small and did not necessarily meet today’s standards for suitable accommodation.

Councillor SJ Robertson said that the site inspection had been worthwhile and, whilst it was a hard decision to reach given the circumstances, the setting and surroundings of the cottage had to be protected.

Councillor DW Greenow commented on: the extensive paperwork circulated by the applicant detailing the discussions and negotiations with officers about the proposal; the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family and the need for wide and level access throughout the property; the alterations made to proposed materials to satisfy requirements; the cottage was very small to start off with and the extension would be adequate for the living conditions and for the care of the family concerned; and the level of support in the community.  Given these considerations and the exceptional circumstances, Councillor Greenow felt that the application should be approved.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer reported that officers had now discussed the Travel Plan with the Local Ward Members and that an additional condition was recommended to ensure the proper monitoring and enforcement of the Travel Plan.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, outlined the concerns of residents about traffic and parking problems, particularly associated with commuters, and the potential effectiveness of a Travel Plan.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, also commented on the numerous concerns received about traffic and parking problems and he felt unable to support the application without a residents' parking scheme in the area.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the officer's recommendation of approval but, given the concerns expressed about parking in this area, proposed that a formal letter be sent to the Highways Department on behalf of the Sub-Committee to request an update on progress with parking policy in the St. Nicholas Ward.  A number of Members endorsed this suggestion.

In response to a question from Councillor SPA Daniels, the Principal Planning Officer advised that it was not clear whether users of the British Telecom Building added to on street parking problems in the locality but this application provided an opportunity to monitor and enforce a Travel Plan.

Councillor PA Andrews commented that many commuters parked in the vicinity and it would be unreasonable to refuse change of use given the off street car and bicycle parking available and the proposed Travel Plan; although the limitations of Travel Plans were acknowledged.

Councillor DB Wilcox, whilst sympathising with the concerns of the Local Ward Members, noted that fewer people worked in the building than had been the case in the past and there were no planning grounds to warrant refusal of planning permission.  He also noted that there was significant demand for parking schemes throughout the county.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted:

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

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

Proposed redevelopment to erect four dwellings.

Proposed redevelopment to erect four dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         The Conservation Manager (Ecology) raised no objections subject to a condition requiring compliance with the recommendations of the Ecologist report.  This being covered by condition no. 9 in the recommendation.

·         The Children’s and Young People’s Directorate had reassessed the application having identified the wrong senior school, the correct senior school had capacity at all year groups, accordingly it was recommended that the draft Heads of Terms be amended to reduce the payment from £9003 to £3156.

·         Holmer Parish Council fully supported the application, as long as septic tanks were used due to the ongoing problems with sewer and drainage system in the area.  The Parish Council requested that no footpath was installed along Attwood Lane as it was felt that it was inappropriate to the area.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         The footpath had been deleted from the recommendation and a grass verge was recommended.

§         The draft Heads of Terms would be changed to reduce the Education payment to £3156.

§         Paragraph 1 of the draft Heads of Terms, appended to the report, should be amended to refer to 'the parish of Holmer' and not Wellington.

Councillor SJ Robertson, 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 Robertson commented that funding for various infrastructure improvements would be provided as part of a major residential development on land to the north of Roman Road, Holmer [DCCW2006/2619/O refers] and suggested that duplication should be avoided.  Councillor Robertson considered that contributions should instead be concentrated towards the introduction of a 30mph speed limit along Attwood Lane, the installation of a pedestrian crossing on the A49, and towards an extension to the community hall; she added that this would benefit both existing and future residents in the locality.  She suggested that, if the Sub-Committee was minded to approve the application, officers be authorised to re-negotiate the proposed planning obligations.

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

Councillor PJ Edwards proposed that officers be authorised to approve the application, subject to further consideration of the planning obligation allocations.  Councillor Edwards said that, as an outline application, permission was sought for the principle of development only but he suggested that the planning officers and the applicant should take the opportunity to consider the position and orientation of the proposed dwellings in order to minimise the potential impact on existing properties, prior to the submission of a reserved matters application.

Councillor RI Matthews noted that the site was located within the settlement boundary and that the proposal accorded with planning policies.  However, he felt that every effort should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Change of use from bakery to chip shop.

Change of use from bakery to chip shop.

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

Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to the representations received, including concerns about the potential for anti-social behaviour, and suggested that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection; on the grounds that the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Councillor PA Andrews noted the potential for odour problems arising from hot food takeaways, particularly the impact on residential accommodation above such outlets.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2008/2887/F be deferred for a site inspection.

Proposed residential development.

Proposed residential development.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         A further letter had been received from the applicants (Parish Council) stating that a shared surface water drainage strategy may be developed in conjunction with the development of the open space with runoff restricted to greenfield rates through the use of SUDS surface water drainage systems including rainwater harvesting and porous surfaces.  Foul drainage would be via the mains sewer.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that:

§         Notwithstanding an objection from the River Lugg Drainage Board, it was considered that this matter could be dealt with by condition if the application was approved.

§         As the consultation period did not expire until 9 February 2009, delegated authority was requested to refuse the application following expiry of the consultation period subject to no additional material planning considerations being raised.

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

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, including: the application would provide funds to facilitate the public open space proposals; the need for recreational and sporting facilities in the village; the site proposed for residential development was only a small proportion of the land available for open space; the all weather pitch and other facilities would be of a high standard; the parish council had undertaken an enormous amount of work on the project on behalf of the community; there was plenty of support from residents and no objections had been received; officers had suggested an alternative site in front of the village hall but the parish council did not own this land; the proposed drainage systems would address the concerns identified; residential development would help to facilitate significant community benefits; and there was no need for affordable housing at present.  Given these considerations, Councillor Greenow felt that the application could be supported contrary to the officer recommendation of refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer clarified that a housing needs survey was planned during 2009 and, whilst there may be demand for affordable housing, there was not up-to-date evidence of need.  He also advised that officers considered the alternative site option, on land around the village hall and within the defined settlement boundary, potentially viable.

Councillor PJ Edwards supported the views of the Local Ward Member and commented that the planning authority could act as an enabler in specific circumstances.  He added that the emerging Local Development Framework would provide an opportunity for such residential allocations in the future and he considered that this development could be accepted as an exception.

Councillor MAF Hubbard acknowledged the importance of public open space but he did not consider that the policy objections had been overcome in this instance.

Councillor SJ Robertson said that she supported the parish council's efforts but noted that there were other, if less immediate, ways to fund improvements to local facilities through charity campaigns; support was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and ancillary buildings and replacement with new two storey oak framed dwelling.

Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and ancillary buildings and replacement with new two storey oak framed dwelling.

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

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, advised that Hampton Bishop was unique in being the only parish with a flood evacuation plan for the entire area and noted that this had brought the community together.  She said that many local people considered the existing building to be an eyesore and that the proposal represented an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of the village.  Given the issues raised, she proposed that the application be deferred for a site inspection; on the grounds that the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2008/2887/F be deferred for a site inspection.

4 March 2009

1 April 2009

29 April 2009

4 March 2009

1 April 2009

29 April 2009