To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors AJM Blackshaw, SPA Daniels, H Davies, GFM Dawe, DW Greenow, MD Lloyd-Hayes, RI Matthews and AP Taylor.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

Proposed dwelling adjoining existing dwelling.

Proposed dwelling adjoining existing dwelling.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, commented that many areas of concern with the proposal had been overcome.  It was noted that there would be some overlooking of adjoining properties but, as there was already overlooking by existing properties, it was not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission.  It was also noted that the Traffic Manager had not raised any objections subject to conditions.

Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, commented that the cul-de-sac form of Bute Avenue should ensure that highway safety was maintained.

In response to a question from Councillor AT Oliver, the other Local Ward Member, the Planning Officer advised that a previous application for a detached dwelling [DCCE2008/1747/F refers] had been refused on the grounds of design, scale and impact on the immediate and surrounding properties; he added that the current scheme addressed the previous reasons for refusal.  Councillor Oliver commented that a semi-detached dwelling was preferable to a detached dwelling in this location, there would be some impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, and the dwelling should be built to achieve a minimum of code level 3 for sustainable homes.  The Planning Officer said that a condition could be considered.

Councillor Attfield drew attention to the need to restrict any new openings in the side elevation of the extension and supported the officer’s recommendation of approval.

In response to a question from Councillor WJ Walling, the Planning Officer highlighted the position of the electricity sub-station and the Central Team Leader said that it was not uncommon for residential dwellings to be sited next to sub-stations.  In response to a further question, the Planning Officer confirmed that the condition in respect of the removal of permitted development rights would apply to the proposed dwelling.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3.         C01 Samples of external materials

4.         F14 Removal of permitted development rights

5.         F15 No windows in side elevation of extension

6.         G09 Details of boundary treatments

7.         G10 Landscaping scheme

8.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

9.         H06 Vehicular access construction

10.       H09 Driveway gradient

11.       H10 Parking - single house

12.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

13.       L01 Foul/surface water drainage

14.       L02 No surface water to connect to public system

15.       L03 No drainage run-off to public system

Informatives:

1.         HN01 Mud on highway

2.         HN05 Works within the highway

3.         HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

4.         N03 Adjoining property rights

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

6.         N19 Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

7.         N14 Party Wall Act 1996

Erection of new residential care home with associated offices and facilities.

Erection of new residential care home with associated offices and facilities.

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:

§               Amended plans had been received identifying the widening of Holywell Gutter Lane from the junction with the B4224, the provision of two pedestrian accesses from Holywell Gutter Lane to the adjacent public open space and provision of a further passing place opposite the proposed site entrance.  The Traffic Manager had also confirmed that the improvements to Holywell Gutter Lane satisfied the Section 106 requirements in this instance.

§               A further plan had been provided identifying the retention of additional mature trees within the site and along the site frontage.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The amended plans addressed the Traffic Manager’s comments and would facilitate safer access and exit and general passage of vehicles along Holywell Gutter Lane.  In addition, the retention of further mature trees was welcomed and would assist in integrating the development into the site and surroundings.

§               It was considered that all outstanding issues had now been addressed and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

§               Typographical errors in the report were corrected.

§               An informative note was recommended in respect of the need for the applicants to ensure that they had lawful authority to drive vehicles over the public bridleway.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms. Ward spoke in objection to the application.

The Chairman, speaking in her capacity as the Local Ward Member, made a number of comments, including:

§               Attention was drawn to paragraph 1.3 of the report, that ‘Martha Trust is a non profit making charity that provides lifelong and day care respite for children and young adults with profound and multiple disabilities’, and the Chairman commented on a visit to the existing facility with a planning officer some years before.

§               The facility would help to improve the quality of life for those being cared for and should be welcomed as a valuable resource in the county.

§               The case officer was congratulated for producing a report which had fully assessed the material considerations, including the conflict with Policy CF7, and the recommendation of approval was supported.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on the excellent work of the Trust but queried the impact of the development on the surrounding countryside.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the application was supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and it was considered that, even with the loss of some existing trees, the development would not be prominent within the immediate or wider landscape; he added that a large number of the trees to be removed were Category C (minor value) and new tree planting would also be undertaken. 

Councillor Vaughan also queried the likely effectiveness of the Travel Plan requirements.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Plan would not be accepted unless it contained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Proposed erection of two semi detached chalet bungalows and associated works.

Proposed erection of two semi detached chalet bungalows and associated works.

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

§               The Transportation Manager had confirmed no objection subject to the imposition of condition H13 to ensure suitable access, turning and parking area.

§               Hereford City Council recommended refusal as an overdevelopment of a backland plot.

§               A letter of objection had been received from Mr D Fletcher stating that noise and pollution would be moved closer to his property and the boundary hedge would be removed to create the access.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The condition recommended by the Transportation Manager had been added to the recommendation.

§               The site was granted planning permission in 2008 for two chalet bungalows and, therefore, the comments of Hereford City Council and the neighbour could not be sustained.

§               As the consultation period did not expire until 13 November 2009, delegated authority was sought to approve the application.

Councillor PA Andrews, a Local Ward Member, noted that there were a number of backland developments in the locality and did not consider that there was any material planning reason to warrant refusal of this application.

Councillor AM Toon, also a Local Ward Member, commented that this was a typical form of development and did not feel that a site inspection was necessary in this instance.

In response to a question from Councillor DB Wilcox, the Central Team Leader confirmed that there were Section 106 Agreement contributions associated with an outline planning permission on the site [DCCW08/2004/O refers] but as the new application was for full planning permission, rather than reserved matters, no contributions were required.  Some Members expressed concerns about the lack of contributions.

The Assistant Solicitor (Corporate) read out the amended recommendation, reproduced in the resolution below.

RESOLVED:

That subject to no further objections being received, by the end of the consultation period, that raise additional material considerations, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application, subject to the conditions noted in the report, and any further conditions considered necessary by officers.

9 December 2009

9 December 2009