To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors ACR Chappell, GFM Dawe, DW Greenow and DB Wilcox.

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.

141.  [A] DCCW2009/0077/F and [B] DCCW2009/0085/C - Barton Sidings, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0AY [Agenda Item 6]

Councillor JD Woodward; Personal.

142.   DCCW2009/0119/F - 304 Kings Acre Road, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 0SD [Agenda Item 7]

Councillor DJ Benjamin; Personal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard; Personal.

Councillor RI Matthews; Personal.

K Bishop, Principal Planning Officer; Personal.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2009 be approved as a correct record.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

In response to a question from Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes about the enforcement of conditions relating to the redevelopment of the Folly Lane colleges, the Central Team Leader said that he would ask the case officer to contact the Member directly.

Demolition of redundant commercial premises and erection of 13 residential dwellings.

Demolition of redundant commercial premises and erection of 13 residential dwellings.

Councillor JD Woodward, a Local Ward Member, asked a number of questions and the responses of the Principal Planning Officer are summarised below:

1.          The height of the proposed dwellings would be approximately the same as adjacent properties.

2.          The recommendation included conditions requiring a study to assess the possibility of contamination and a remediation scheme to remove or contain any contamination if found.

3.          Noise exposure categories were outlined and it was reported that the Environmental Health Manager had confirmed that subject to appropriate conditions the proposal was acceptable.  Consequently, the recommendation included conditions to mitigate noise impact.

4.          The site had been vacant since 2006 and, although a marketing exercise had been undertaken, no formal offers had been received.  Therefore, an alternative use could be considered.  It was noted that the lack of demand might be due to the type of buildings and the location of the site.

5.          Boundary treatments were not identified in the application but the recommendation included a condition requiring these details.

6.          A breakdown of contributions towards enhanced educational infrastructure was provided.

7.          Residents' parking could be included in the list of items under sustainable transport infrastructure contributions.

Councillor Woodward drew attention to the objections of the Economic Regeneration Manager and Hereford City Council and commented on the need to safeguard employment land, particularly given the shortages north of the river and the potential impact of Edgar Street Grid.  She also commented on parking problems in the area and, given the shortage of facilities, requested that contributions towards enhanced recreational or public open space be designated to the St. Nicholas Ward.

Councillor DJ Benjamin, the other Local Ward Member, said that the site was run down but he had concerns about the layout of the proposed dwellings and felt that no development should commence until the area was covered by a residents' parking scheme.

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that noise levels were high in the area and suggested that noise attenuation fencing be considered.  Concerns were expressed about the limited amenity space, non-opening windows and access arrangements, particularly for refuse collection.

In response to comments by Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the habitable rooms were focussed to the front of the dwellings and the fixed windows on the rear elevation provided light to areas such as stairwells.

Councillor PA Andrews felt that the layout of the proposal would result in an over intensive form of development, with limited amenity space and potentially reduced standard of living accommodation.  Other Members supported these views.

Councillor RI Matthews reminded officers of the need to discuss local infrastructure requirements with Local Ward Members at the earliest opportunity.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that, as a brownfield site, some form of redevelopment might be appropriate but felt that this proposal was over intensive.  Comments were also made about residents' parking and library facilities.

Councillor NL Vaughan did not feel that the loss of employment land was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Replacement dwelling and garage building with some minor landscaping, including alterations to existing entrance to improve site access.

Replacement dwelling and garage building with some minor landscaping, including alterations to existing entrance to improve site access.

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

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, said that the existing cottage was an attractive vernacular building of local architectural and historical interest and was worthy of preservation.  Councillor Andrews also had concerns about the design of the proposed replacement.  Therefore, she felt that the proposal should be refused as being contrary to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policy HBA8 (Locally Important Buildings).  Councillor SPA Daniels, also a Local Ward Member, supported this and commented on the need for consistency.

The Central Team Leader reminded the Sub-Committee that each application had to be considered on its own merits and a judgement needed to be made on the circumstances relevant to this application.

Councillor AM Toon, the other Local Ward Member, commented on planning obligation requirements, said that she was ambivalent about the design of the replacement, and questioned the relationship between the applicant's agent and Hereford Civic Society.

The Chairman noted that Hereford City Council had no objection to the application.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes spoke in support of the application and noted that: a number of issues would be addressed through conditions; Breinton Parish Council had no objection; the cottage was not unattractive but was not in a Conservation Area; the building had a number of structural defects; and the replacement dwelling complied with the relevant policies.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on drainage problems in the locality and the damage caused by water ingress.

Councillor PJ Edwards welcomed the environmental credentials of the replacement as outlined by the speaker but questioned the reasons for refusal relating to previous applications at the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that previous applications had sought an additional dwelling in the grounds and, therefore, were not directly relevant to this application for a replacement dwelling.

Councillor RI Matthews drew attention to the findings of a structural engineer's report and noted that officers considered the siting and scale of the replacement to be acceptable.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw commented that the historical nature of the cottage had been debased over the years and the fabric of the building was in a poor condition.  He said that he supported the proposed replacement, particularly it had sustainable features and would promote local businesses.

Councillor MAF Hubbard said that, unlike some other recent applications for replacement dwellings, this proposal was reasonable in terms of scale.  Councillor Hubbard also said that Hereford Civic Society operated similar protocols to the Council on declarations of interest and separation of roles and, therefore, there was no reason to question the integrity of the comments provided.

Councillor AT Oliver said that the demolition of cottages was regrettable but, in this case, it was apparent that the structure of the building was beyond reasonable economic repair.  He said that he did not oppose the application but did have reservations about the design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

27 May 2009

24 June 2009

22 July 2009

27 May 2009

24 June 2009

22 July 2009