To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor SPA Daniels, KS Guthrie, RI Matthews 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.

130.   DCCW2008/2781/F - Public Convenience, The Oval, Belmont Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR2 7HG [Agenda Item 5]

Councillor WU Attfield; Personal; Reason: Member of Herefordshire Housing.

Councillor AM Toon; Personal; Reason: Member of Herefordshire Housing.

Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal; Reason: Member of Parish Council.

131.  [A] DCCE2008/2898/F and [B] DCCE2008/2902/C - Church Villa, Church Lane, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 4JY [Agenda Item 6]

Councillor GA Powell; Personal; Reason: Applicant worked at business used by the Councillor.

132.   DCCW2008/2775/F - 29 Whitefriars Road, Hereford, HR2 7XE [Agenda Item 7]

Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal; Reason: Member of Parish Council.

134.   DCCW2009/0382/F – Land to Rear of 103 Kings Acre Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0RQ [Agenda Item 9]

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

Councillor PA Andrews; Personal; Member of City Council.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

Referring to Minute 123 - DCCE2009/0062/O [Orchard End, 9 Broadlands Lane, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1HZ], Councillor NL Vaughan asked that his comments be amended to read:

'He welcomed low density development and supported the application but drew attention to local residents' comments about potential overlooking and the need to mitigate this concern.'

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2009 be approved as a correct record.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

Demolish existing public convenience and replace with three storey building, hot food takeway on ground floor, storage on first floor, staff living accommodation on second floor.

Demolish existing public convenience and replace with three storey building, hot food takeaway on ground floor, storage on first floor, staff living accommodation on second floor.

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

·         The footway to the rear is an adopted highway therefore a Stopping Up Order would be required for its closure.  It is believed that ownership is vested in Herefordshire Housing.

·         The agent has confirmed opening times of 1200-1400 hours and 1700-2300.

The Principal Planning Officer also provided the following officer comments:

§         The applicants have offered to light the path, which falls, outside of the application site.

§         The opening times will be controlled by condition 5.

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held and said that this proposal provided an opportunity for much needed redevelopment, particularly given the history of anti-social behaviour issues at this site.

Councillor GA Powell, also a Local Ward Member, outlined the background to the application and said that, although a smaller building with two rather than three bedrooms would be preferred, she considered the application to be acceptable on balance subject to conditions, particularly in respect of CCTV and traffic calming.

Councillor PJ Edwards, the other Local Ward Member, said that he could not support the application in its current state as he considered the proposal to be a serious over intensification of the site.  He felt that the scale of the development would have an overbearing impact and questioned whether such an increase in cubic capacity would be permitted elsewhere.  He said that refusal would provide an opportunity for the applicant to reassess the scheme and undertake discussions with Hereford Housing to address the problems with the alleyway to the rear; he added that, as well as anti-social behaviour, there were litter and fire risk issues associated with such pathways.  Councillor Edwards also said that there were no suitable areas of parking for this use.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that the Sub-Committee had been minded to refuse a proposal for a chip shop at the last meeting [DCCW2008/2887/F refers] and that there were similar concerns with this application.  Councillor Lloyd-Hayes commented that some matters, such as litter and emanating fumes and odours, could be controlled through conditions but relevant reasons for refusal for this application included: harm to the residential amenity of the residents in the area particularly those above and adjacent to the premises; harm to the character of the area in terms of social activities outside normal business hours; and fear of crime.

Councillor AM Toon reported that Herefordshire Housing was considering options for the regeneration of this area and this application might be out of character with the emerging design approach.

Councillor MAF Hubbard questioned whether the applicant could be required to meet the legal costs of a Stopping Up Order, if agreement was reached with Herefordshire Housing.  The Legal Practice Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

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.

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

·         I regret that there is an error in the report.  This has not been updated to include the comment from the Council’s Housing Inspector and further comment from the Conservation Manager.  [Both comments were summarised in the schedule of updates circulated at the meeting]

·         Further correspondence has been received from the agent, as follows:

We believe that the report (from Private Sector Housing) in itself is not relevant to our application on this site.  As agent, we have submitted numerous applications for replacement dwellings in accordance with Policy H7 of the UDP.  It does not appear to state nor have we ever been asked to implement this type of survey as a condition when seeking approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling and its replacement.  We therefore feel that the conclusion of the report is of no relevance in determining our application on this site.

The Principal Planning Officer also provided the following officer comments:

§         The policy and conservation issues are already outlined in the report.  The other issue raised above is with regard to the condition of the building.  PPG 15 emphasises that consent should not be given for the demolition of such a building without clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use or find a viable new use.  The application was not accompanied by any evidence relating to the condition of the dwelling, and consequently the advice of the Housing Officer was sought and the Conservation Manager also adds to this point.  It does not appear, purely with respect to its condition, that there is any necessity for the building to be removed.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, the principal points included:

s         Hampton Bishop residents considered the existing building to be an eyesore, there were a number of buildings of different periods and styles in the area, and the replacement would not be prominent when approaching the church.

s         Although the building might have an interesting core, the site was in an unfortunate state and the quality of the building was poor.

s          She considered that demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement was acceptable, particularly given the need to elevate floor levels to minimise flood risk.

s         As Hampton Bishop was the only parish with a flood evacuation plan for the entire area, appropriate weight needed to be given to the comments of the Environment Agency.  The Chairman noted that only a summary of Environment Agency correspondence had been included in the report and a longer extract was read out which indicated that there would be a reduction in flood risk through the replacement of the existing building.

s         It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

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.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Pritchard had registered to speak at the meeting but decided not to speak.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that, following deferral at the January 2009 meeting, further investigations into the visibility splay had resulted in the parking space and extension being set back from the front of the property.

Councillor HD Davies, a Local Ward Member, commented that this property had one of the larger garden plots in the vicinity, that there were issues with parking but this was not uncommon on the estate, that an existing tree could be removed at any time, and that there did not appear to be any material planning considerations that would warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance.

Councillor PJ Edwards, also a Local Ward Member, considered that the application should be refused due to the detrimental impact of the development on the character of the area.  Councillor Edwards drew attention to the comments of Belmont Rural Parish Council, particularly that the access point was too close to a junction and that the proposal would exacerbate existing parking and passing problems.

Councillor GA Powell, the other Local Ward Member, said that the curve of Whitefriars Road and inconsiderate parking meant that visibility at the junction was restricted and this development could further compromise highway safety.

A number of Members noted that there was adequate space for an extension and that the Traffic Manager had no objections.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer outlined the reasons for refusal on a previous application [DCCW2008/1394/F refers].

A motion to refuse the application was defeated and the resolution below was then agreed.

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.      C02 (Matching external materials (extension)).

         Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      H10 (Parking - single house) (Porous material for new parking area).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

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

Permanent retention of fixed (not rotated) Spanish polytunnels for use in soft fruit growing (table top method) as previously approved DCCW2003/2321/F & DCW2004/4212/F.

Permanent retention of fixed (not rotated) Spanish polytunnels for use in soft fruit growing (table top method) as previously approved DCCW2003/2321/F & DCW2004/4212/F.

The application was withdrawn on 30 March 2009.

Proposed house.

Proposed house.

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

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, proposed that the application be refused as she did not consider the design to be in keeping with adjoining properties.  Councillor Woodward noted that the Traffic Manager had not raised any objections but she felt that the proposal could have an impact on highway safety, particularly given parking problems on Kings Acre Road.  The concerns of neighbours regarding overlooking and loss of light were noted.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, felt that the architectural approach was acceptable given the constraints of the plot and he did not consider that a single dwelling would have a significant additional impact on existing traffic problems.  Therefore, he supported the officer recommendation of approval.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that, in the absence of any objection from the Traffic Manager and given the comments of a Planning Inspector on a previous application [CW2004/4033/O refers], it was not considered that refusal on highway safety grounds could be sustained on appeal.  It was also reported that officers had worked with the agent to identify a suitable design and the asymmetric roof should minimise loss of light and the potential for overlooking.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised there was no issue of 'garden grabbing' as this proposal related to a single dwelling and the principle of residential development in this location was acceptable.

Members debated the merits of the design approach.

In response to a question, Councillor PA Andrews advised that Hereford City Council had recommended refusal of planning permission on this application.

Councillor AM Toon drew attention to paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 of the report which referred to '…the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing to suspend the requirement for residential schemes for 5 dwellings or less which came into effect on the 1 April 2009'.  Councillor Toon said that she was not aware that this decision had been communicated to Members, she questioned the course of action taken given the extensive consultation on the Herefordshire UDP and the Planning Obligations SPD, and commented on the importance of developer contributions to provide enhanced infrastructure to mitigate the impact of developments, particularly in urban wards.  The Central Team Leader outlined the background to the issue and the terms of the temporary suspension of Section 106 payments; it was noted that the situation would be assessed at the end of September 2009.  Councillor AJM Blackshaw commented that the decision had been taken in response to the deepening of the recession and decreasing development activity.

A motion to refuse the application was defeated and the resolution below was then agreed.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)) (12 months).

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      B02 (Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

29 April 2009

27 May 2009

24 June 2009

29 April 2009

27 May 2009

24 June 2009