To note the election of Chairman and the appointment of Vice-Chairman at the Annual Council meeting on 22 May 2009.

The Legal Practice Manager reported that Council had not elected a Sub-Committee Chairman or appointed a Vice-Chairman at the Annual Meeting on 22 May 2009.  However, it did delegate authority to the Group Leaders to nominate to the offices and the Group Leaders were to meet for this purpose on 29 May.  Therefore, it was necessary for the Sub-Committee to elect a Chairman for this meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor JE Pemberton be elected Chairman for this meeting.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors AJM Blackshaw, SPA Daniels, H Davies, GFM Dawe, MD Lloyd-Hayes, GA Powell, NL Vaughan 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.

6.   DCCW2009/0384/F - Upper Hill Farm, Breinton, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 7PH

Councillor PJ Edwards; Personal.

Councillor DW Greenow; Personal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard; Personal.

8.   DCCW2009/0160/F - Land at Brook Farm, Marden, Herefordshire, HR1 3ET 

Councillor KS Guthrie; Personal.

Councillor MAF Hubbard; Personal.

Councillor AM Toon; Personal.

10.   DCCE2009/0755/RM - 22 Folly Lane, Hereford, HR1 1LY 

Councillor SJ Robertson; Prejudicial; Left the meeting for the duration of the item; Reason: Applicant's agent was known to the Member through architectural work and parish council.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

Change of use of barns to 2 nos. houses.

Change of use of barns to 2 nos. houses.

Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to the comments of Breinton Parish Council, particularly with regard to the access arrangements.  He considered that the Sub-Committee would benefit from a site inspection as the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2009/0384/F be deferred for a site inspection.

Provision of one dung midden as a replacement for those previously approved under application DCCW2008/0335/F.

Provision of one dung midden as a replacement for those previously approved under application DCCW2008/0335/F.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Morawiecka spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Wheeler spoke in support of the application.

Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, including: recent building developments at the farm; the close proximity of the midden to a clean water pond and the potential for contamination, possibly to the River Wye; concerns about compliance with conditions on previous applications; the appearance of the retaining structure; and the need for adequate mature landscaping to mitigate visual impact.  Given these and other considerations, Councillor Matthews proposed that a site inspection be held as the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

In response to a question about potential pollution of the adjacent clean water pond, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the development was constructed to ensure that all run-off fell back towards the buildings and was collected in a holding tank before dispersal, in accordance with the Defra Code of Practice.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2009/0575/F be deferred for a site inspection.

Change of use of land from agriculture to a site for the accommodation of seasonal agricultural workers in mobile homes and demountable portable buildings stationed continuously on the site and not removed at the end of the agricultural season (retrospective).

Change of use of land from agriculture to a site for the accommodation of seasonal agricultural workers in mobile homes and demountable portable buildings stationed continuously on the site and not removed at the end of the agricultural season (retrospective).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council, Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application, and Mr. Gregory and Mr. Woodman spoke in support of the application; in accordance with the Council's Constitution, SO 5.11.2, the Chairman permitted five minutes speaking time for each speaker category.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, commented on a number of issues, including:

¨             It was noted that the applicants had undertaken consultations with the local community but Councillor Guthrie was disappointed that this application did not go far enough to reduce the scale and impact of the accommodation.

¨             She did not feel that the need for seasonal workers at this site in such numbers and throughout the year had been demonstrated.

¨             Attention was drawn to the comments of Marden Parish Council, particularly comments about the similarity of this proposal to the refused scheme.

¨             Improvements to the quality of accommodation were to be commended but serious concerns remained about the proposals.

¨             Although it had been indicated that a 'whole farm' approach would be undertaken, development at the farm would be the subject of a number of planning applications.  

¨             Concerns were expressed about the impact on Brook Farmhouse and its setting.

¨             The Parish Council considered that the scheme failed to meet the functional needs test of PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas).

¨             Concerns were expressed about the access arrangements and impact on the local road infrastructure.

¨             Comments were made about the limited monitoring of the site in the past and the need for assurances regarding this going forward.

¨             Councillor Guthrie felt unable to support the application and proposed that it be refused as being contrary to PPS7, E9, E12, LA2 and LA3, due to the scale of the development and adverse impact on the village of Marden.

The Principal Planning Officer responded as follows:

·              Attention was drawn to the recommended conditions which would mitigate the impact of the development, such as lighting and landscaping, and it was suggested that additional condition could be included to limit the maximum number of workers at the site. 

·              The applicants had changed their approach to communication significantly; it was noted that fewer letters of objection had been received about this proposal compared to previous applications.

·              The Enforcement Team was aware of the site and would continue to monitor it.

·              The Traffic Manager had no objections subject to conditions.

·              Applications would be required for other developments at the site, this application was limited to provide accommodation for seasonal workers for a temporary period of five years.

A number of Members supported the Local Ward Members' comments.

Councillor MAF Hubbard noted the need to support agricultural enterprises in the county but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application (part retrospective) to erect fixed (non rotating) Spanish polytunnels over arable (soft fruit) crops grown on table tops.

Application (part retrospective) to erect fixed (non rotating) Spanish polytunnels over arable (soft fruit) crops grown on table tops.

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

·        Land Drainage advice had been received which confirmed that the polytunnels were believed to have little effect on any increase in rainfall runoff and velocity of the flow due to the rainfall management on the site.

·        It was reported that this advice was compatible with the information received from the Environment Agency and the River Lugg Land Drainage Board.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Ternouth spoke on behalf of Marden Parish Council, Mr. Fraser spoke in objection to the application, and Mr. Gregory and Mr. Woodman spoke in support of the application; in accordance with the Council's Constitution, SO 5.11.2, the Chairman permitted five minutes speaking time for each speaker category.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, made a number comments, including:

¨             Consultation by the company had raised expectations that there would be a substantial reduction in the land covered by polytunnels and local residents were disappointed with this application.

¨             Marden Parish Council had identified that the site area proposed was 40% larger than that refused on appeal and considered that the proposed scheme would have a considerable impact on the character and environment of the village.

¨             The letters of objection had highlighted the incongruous visual impact of the polytunnels which could not be mitigated adequately through landscaping.

¨             Reference was made to PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and the need to ensure that the quality and character of the countryside was protected and, where possible, enhanced.

¨             Councillor Guthrie considered that the application should be refused as being contrary to E8, LA2, LA3, S2, S7, DR1, DR2, DR4, E6, E10 and E13, due to the unacceptable visual impact and adverse impact of the scale of the development on the character of the area.

Councillor DW Greenow sympathised with views of local residents but noted that the removal of particular fields from the previously dismissed appeal had reduced visual impact and had moved the activities of the operation further away from the village.

Councillor AT Oliver commented on the need to consider the application on planning grounds and noted the benefits of table-top production, particularly in terms of production efficiency and opportunities to create wildlife corridors.  The importance of protecting the countryside was acknowledged but the need for a working and sustainable rural economy was also emphasised.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the refusal of the previous application [DCCW2009/0160/F above] could have an impact on this proposal.

Councillor ACR Chappell commented that new farming techniques often caused disruption to communities when introduced but the wider economic benefits also had to be taken into consideration.  He also made comments about retrospective planning applications and the need for representations to focus on planning matters.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the scale and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposed dwelling with integral garage and alterations to existing access.

Proposed dwelling with integral garage and alterations to existing access.

Councillor AP Taylor, a Local Ward Member, said that he had reservations about the access arrangements but supported the officer recommendation of approval.

Councillor AT Oliver noted that the report, under paragraph 5.1, stated that no response had been received from Hereford City Council but he understood that a representation had been submitted in April.

RESOLVED:

That approval of reserved matters be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      B03 (Amended plans).

         Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.      C01 (Samples of external materials).

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

3.      F08 (No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation).

         Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.      F14 (Removal of permitted development rights).

         Reason: In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.      H06 (Vehicular access construction).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

6.      H09 (Driveway gradient).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7.      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 and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.      HN05 - Works within the highway.

2.      HN10 - No drainage to discharge to highway.

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

4.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans.

Conversion and alterations of public house to five flats.

Conversion and alterations of public house to five flats.

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

·         A letter of objection had been received from the occupants of 8 Ordnance Close and was summarised as:

§         We were told there would be no further development in the village, as there is no GP Surgery, School and limited public transport.

§         Concern about increase in volume of traffic, and on street parking.

§         The number of flats is over-development of the site.

Councillor KS Guthrie, the Local Ward Member, drew attention to the comments of Moreton-on-Lugg Parish Council; relating to the delivery times for materials and equipment; the need for improvements to the access; and the suggestion that a Local Housing Needs Policy be included as part of a Section 106 Agreement.  Councillor Guthrie also drew attention to local residents' concerns about the potential impact of additional traffic. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that: it would not be reasonable to restrict hours of delivery further, particularly given the fall back position of the permitted use; no objections had been received from the Traffic Manager; and, although this development would be liable for Section 106 contributions, from 1 April 2009 the requirement had been relaxed for residential schemes for five dwellings or less, subject to the planning permission being limited to 12 months.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: concerns about the proximity of the working agricultural unit were noted but it was not considered that the proposed units would suffer any significant deficit in the levels of residential amenity; the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager had confirmed that no complaints had been received about farming activities from existing residents; the recommended conditions included a condition to require details of boundary treatments; the location of the extraction equipment associated with the takeaway was explained and it was noted that the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager was satisfied that there would not be an adverse impact on the residential units; and rights of access across private land were civil rather than planning matters.

RESOLVED:

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 (Development in accordance with the approved plans).

          Reason. To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.       C03 (Matching external materials (general)).

          Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.       G09 (Details of boundary treatments).

          Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development has an acceptable standard of privacy and to conform to Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.       H05 (Access gates).

          Reason: In the interests of highway safety and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Retention of arch and rebuilding of wall.  Conversion of existing hay loft to flat in Coach House.  Build stable block.

Retention of arch and rebuilding of wall.  Conversion of existing hay loft to flat in Coach House.  Build stable block.

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

·         Amended plans had been received which reduced the roof pitch and removed the overhang on the proposed stable building.  Amended plans had also been received for the conversion of the coach house, showing only one of the dormers as full sized.

·         It was reported that these amendments had been requested by the planning officer and, therefore, the recommendation remained that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Hodges spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Jago spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, commented on local tensions regarding development at this site, particularly as this application was in part retrospective.  In view of the concerns highlighted in the representations received, the Chairman proposed that a site inspection be held as the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of planning application DCCW2009/0384/F be deferred for a site inspection.

24 June 2009

22 July 2009

19 August 2009

24 June 2009

22 July 2009

19 August 2009