To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors WU Attfield, AJM Blackshaw, SPA Daniels, H Davies and DW Greenow.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members.

31.   DCCE0009/0950/F - Land off Bullingham Lane, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR2 7RY

Councillor ACR Chappell; Prejudicial; Reason: Chair of Governors at St. Martin's Primary School.

Councillor AT Oliver; Prejudicial; Reason: Lives nearby.

34.   DCCW2008/2946/F - Church House Farm, Wellington, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 8AZ.

Councillor KS Guthrie; Prejudicial; Reason: The applicant is an acquaintance.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

Referring to Minute 20 [DCCW2009/0384/F - Upper Hill Farm, Breinton, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR4 7PH], Councillor DB Wilcox drew attention to comments he was reported to have made about the need for future maintenance of the access lane and considered that this matter should have been included in the list of conditions.  The Democratic Services Officer highlighted that the resolution included reference to the need for clarification regarding the outstanding matters identified by the Sub-Committee and that planning permission would be subject to further conditions considered necessary by Officers.  Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member for the application site, advised that discussions were ongoing and the issue of maintenance would be raised.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

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 gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A further e-mail had been received from the applicants stating that, based upon information on Tarrington within the ‘Royal Commission of Historic Houses of England 1932’, the nearby arch at The Vine was in place in the late 18th Century and the moat around Tarrington Court was much larger than first thought which may have prevented the main access being to the north.

§               The Officer comments noted that there remained no definitive historical information to identify the original access arrangements.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, drew attention to a number of points:

·               Although consideration of the applications had been deferred at the last meeting for further negotiations with the applicants and the Sub-Committee had emphasised a need to ensure that the Local Ward Member was involved, she had not been involved in any discussions or meetings that had taken place.  It was noted that the report stated that the applicants 'wish the applications to be determined in their present form'.

·               The Chairman expressed concerns about the retrospective nature of the works carried out and commented on discrepancies in the timing of the works.  She also expressed concerns about inconsistencies and supposition in the comments of the Senior Conservation Officer.

·               The Chairman did not feel that an e-mail and letter received from the applicants added any additional relevant information material to the determination and disputed a suggestion that an area adjacent to the wall was historically a village pound.  It was acknowledged that planning policies did not specify that public views of a listed building must be maintained but the Chairman considered the design of the arch to be poor and, along with increase in the height of the wall, did not complement the setting of Tarrington Court.

·               It was noted that the Sub-Committee could not make 'split decisions' on elements of planning applications and, therefore, the Chairman proposed that the applications be refused.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the proposals had resulted in differences of opinion in the locality but she felt that it was the mixture of features that made villages interesting and considered these applications to be acceptable.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the arch was incongruous and noted that the applicants had not chosen to amend the proposals in response to the concerns expressed at the last meeting.  He considered that the applications should be refused as being contrary to policies S7 (Natural and historic heritage) and HBA4 (Setting of listed buildings).  He added that the arch was a poor substitute for the traditional Herefordshire gate that it replaced.

In response to questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

s                The works in respect of the rebuilding of the wall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Proposed amendment of 39 previously approved residential dwellings and their associated parking to 51 residential dwellings to plots 99-137 & 505-517 creating an additional 12 dwellings and their associated parking.

Proposed amendment of 39 previously approved residential dwellings and their associated parking to 51 residential dwellings to plots 99-137 & 505-517 creating an additional 12 dwellings and their associated parking.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and the following updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Amended plans had now been received which addressed the previous concerns in the report.

§               The Highways Agency had indicated, shortly before the meeting, that it did not have any objections to the application, although written confirmation of this position was awaited.

§               It was recommended that, once all other matters were resolved, the requirement for the supplemental Section 106 Agreement be dealt with by condition.

Councillor ACR Chappell and ATO Oliver, Local Ward Members, had declared prejudicial interests 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 Chappell commented on the need to ensure that contributions towards enhanced educational infrastructure were received.  Councillor Oliver commented on the limited sustainability measures and amenity space, felt that the density of over 50 dwellings per hectare was unacceptable, and noted existing problems with parking and traffic movement which could be exacerbated by this development.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes expressed concerns about the narrowness of the road network and potential highway safety implications, the high density of development proposed, and the quality of the design approach.  Therefore, Councillor Lloyd-Hayes proposed that planning permission be refused.

Councillor PJ Edwards commented on the planning history of the site and the significant increases in unit numbers and density since the masterplan for the redevelopment of Bradbury Lines was first presented.  He also commented on the consequential impact on parking and traffic routes through the estate and on the quality of life for local residents.  He said that a further increase in density was not acceptable and that the proposal was contrary to policy H15 (Density).

In response to questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that

s                The whole of Phase 3 was required to meet the Eco Homes standard of Very Good and, although this standard had been replaced by the Code for Sustainable Homes, the developers sought to maintain this or a similar standard with the new dwellings; a condition for this purpose had been recommended accordingly.

s                There had been several Section 106 Agreements across various applications and these had, in essence, been complied with and contributions paid; it was noted that a payment was required upon occupation of the 501st dwelling and this was expected in the next few months.

s                The Unitary Development Plan gave the estimated capacity of the estate as 600 dwellings.

s                The narrowness of the road network was intentional as it incorporated 'Home Zone' elements, aimed at reducing traffic speeds.  Furthermore, the parking ratio for phase 3 was above that required by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Demolition of existing house and construction of two new houses.

Demolition of existing house and construction of two new houses.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the applications.

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

The Chairman commented that the application site was in the Tupsley Ward, although it was close to the boundary with the Backbury Ward.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, supported the applications and welcomed the retention of mature trees and hedgerows, although noted that some had to be removed to facilitate the access, and the high standard of sustainable measures proposed.  Councillors WJ Walling and AP Taylor, the other Local Ward Members, also supported the applications.

The Chairman drew attention to the comments of Hampton Bishop Parish Council, including that 'there is a policy of no new builds in Hampton Bishop due to frequent flooding'.  However, the Chairman said that she was not aware that this particular site had a history of flooding problems.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·               The possible route of an outer relief road had been identified to the east of the application site but this route was not protected in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

·               A condition could be included to require the buildings to be constructed to achieve Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, to ensure that the measures proposed by the applicant were achieved. 

The Northern Team Leader noted that Policy DR1 enabled the authority to require measures for the conservation of energy and water.  Councillor Walling commented that the applicant's proposals appeared to be ahead of the field in this area in any case.

RESOLVED:

In respect of DCCE0009/0936/F:

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.      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.      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.

4.      F16 (No new windows in specified elevation).

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.      F17 (Obscure glazing to windows).

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

6.      D09 (Details of rooflights).

         Reason: To ensure that the rooflights are of an appropriate form and minimise the potential disruption to the appearance and continuity of the roofs in the interests of the safeguarding of the special architectural or historical interest of the building and to comply with the requirements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Erection of 7 no. dwellings comprising 5 no. open market houses, 2 no. affordable houses and a new vehicular access.

Erection of 7 no. dwellings comprising 5 no. open market houses, 2 no. affordable houses and a new vehicular access.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               An ecological survey was carried out in 2007/2008 but was not submitted with the application.  This had now been provided and it did not reveal the presence of any protected or other species of note.  The Conservation Manager (Ecology) therefore raised no objections subject to conditions requiring a strategy for ecological and wildlife enhancement and the ecological recommendations to be implemented.

§               An amended plan had been provided identifying the required visibility splay but the Traffic Manager requested that this be illustrated on a survey plan to identify any constraints to achieving the visibility.

§               The landscape officer was satisfied with the revised landscape proposals subject to minor changes to some of the proposed species and location of planting.

§               A condition was recommended requiring the general market dwellings be designed and constructed to achieve Code Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes along with conditions covering the ecological requirements.

§               It was suggested that the delegated recommendation be changed to also include the issuing of planning permission subject to the additional information and minor changes requested by the Traffic Manager and Conservation Manager (Landscape) being provided.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Spreckley had registered to speak in support of the application but decided not to speak on this occasion.

Councillor GFM Dawe, the Local Ward Member, expressed a concern that contributions towards highway and sustainable transport initiatives might be diverted outside the parish and questioned whether clause 5 of the draft Heads of Terms could refer specifically to initiatives within Little Dewchurch.  In response, the Northern Team Leader commented that such a specific reference might limit the types of initiatives that could be supported and the Legal Practice Manager suggested that the wording be changed to 'within the vicinity of Little Dewchurch' instead.  Councillor Dawe said that application was contentious in the locality, particularly given the density and potential urbanisation of the area, but also noted that elements in support of the proposal included sustainability measures, affordable housing, and the fact that the application site was allocated for development within the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor AT Oliver questioned whether there was sufficient room for vehicles to pass at the access without conflict, commented on the need to restrict traffic speeds through the village, suggested that reference to North Hereford Park and Ride be amended, and suggested that rainwater harvesting be incorporated into the development.

Councillor PJ Edwards said that he supported environmental initiatives but questioned the appropriateness of pressing a small development to include advanced rainwater harvesting measures.  He suggested that residential amenity and reduced carbon footprint could be enhanced through additional landscaping between the houses.  Councillor PA Andrews agreed that rainwater harvesting could place a substantial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Residential development of 20 houses comprising 13 open market houses and 7 affordable houses (amended access).

Residential development of 20 houses comprising 13 open market houses and 7 affordable houses (amended access).

The Chairman noted that this was a significant development in a small parish, that the Case Officer and the Local Ward Member were unable to attend this meeting, and considered 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.  Other Members supported this.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection.

19 August 2009

16 September 2009

14 October 2009

19 August 2009

16 September 2009

14 October 2009