To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors WU Attfield, AJM Blackshaw, ACR Chappell, SPA Daniels, GFM Dawe, MAF Hubbard, RI Matthews, GA Powell, AP Taylor, NL Vaughan and DB Wilcox.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

84.       DCCE0009/1813/F - 10 Chilton Square, Tupsley, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 1PS [Agenda Item 8].

Councillor AM Toon; Personal; Chairman of the Board of Herefordshire Housing Ltd.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee received an information report.

Outline planning application for two storey dwelling.

Outline planning application for two storey dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided.  Comments on amended plans included:

§               Highways Officer: ‘The proposed layout and walls to prevent access other than to Springfield Road is acceptable.  I would suggest that the wall is limited in height to allow visibility of any vehicles or pedestrians using the track’.

§               Withington Group Parish Council: ‘WPC notes the amendments; however the plans are marked as ‘illustrative purposes only’.  The WPC would request that any permission is conditioned such that only a dormer bungalow will be permitted.  There is also concern that the omission of an integral garage restricts the plot such that siting is either close to Wainfries (as on the original plans) or close to the dwelling to the south (as on the amendment).  An integral garage would allow the dwelling to be centrally located.  The WPC would also request that no construction traffic is permitted to access the lane direct from the A4103.  As there is a doubt as to ownership of the lane and of maintenance liability, the WPC would request that any damage caused by construction traffic is repaired.’

§               Two further letters of objection had been received from neighbouring properties.  The concerns raised mainly related to the increase in traffic and the access lane being very narrow.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               ‘In relation to the comments from the WPC, condition 6 restricts the height of the building to 6.5 metres which will ensure that only a dormer bungalow can be constructed.  In relation to the comments made about an integral garage, this application is for outline consent only, with the scale and appearance of the property being left for further consideration, therefore this will be given further consideration in the reserved matters application.’

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

The Senior Planning Officer advised that: the application was for outline planning permission, to include the siting as well as means of access with other matters reserved for future consideration; a condition was recommended to restrict the height of the building to mitigate the concern about loss of light; the existing boundary hedgerow already caused some loss of light and it was not considered that the proposed dwelling would have an unacceptable impact; and the recommended conditions included measures in respect of parking for site operatives and restriction of hours during construction.

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, commented on the difficulties of siting the proposal without having some impact on neighbouring properties but noted that concerns had been addressed as far as possible.  He said that there was a need to ensure that construction traffic accessed the site from the north and not directly from the A4103.  He also said that the design of the dwelling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Construction of rear extension, replace wooden porch with block and render porch and extend domestic curtilage - retrospective.

Construction of rear extension, replace wooden porch with block and render porch and extend domestic curtilage - retrospective.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that, in response to comments received from the Landscape Officer, the applicant had changed the description of the application to remove reference to the extension to the domestic curtilage.  Consequently, delegated authority was sought to issue planning permission once a suitably amended site location plan had been received.  The Senior Planning Officer then gave a presentation on the application.

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

Councillor PA Andrews felt that it was unfortunate the Local Ward Member could not attend the meeting and considered the application to be acceptable.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes drew attention to the comments of Callow and Haywood Group Parish Council about the retrospective nature of the application and related enforcement issues.

Councillor PJ Edwards said that he was disappointed that the application was retrospective, particularly given the increase in cubic floor area.  The Chairman noted that each application, whether retrospective or not, had to be considered on its own merits.

Councillor AT Oliver expressed concerns about the retrospective aspects of the application and considered the alterations to the building to be unacceptable in terms of appearance, size and massing.

In response to a question from Councillor AM Toon, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the extension was sited essentially on the footprint of a previous flat roofed extension.  Councillor Toon said that developers should not ignore the planning process but considered this particular application to be acceptable.

The Central Team Leader reminded the Sub-Committee that the retrospective nature of the application should have no bearing on the determination of the proposal.  He noted that the policy considerations were finely balanced but officers were of the opinion that the proposal was acceptable and could be supported.  He also outlined potential issues for enforcement in respect of the extension of domestic curtilage.

RESOLVED:

That officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the receipt of a suitably amended site location plan and subject to conditions considered necessary by officers.

Change of use of land used for agriculture for the accommodation of seasonal workers in mobile homes.

Change of use of land used for agriculture for the accommodation of seasonal workers in mobile homes.

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

§               Withington Group Parish Council: ‘notes the additional landscaping and details of the ‘pods’.  There is still concern over the ‘quality’ of the accommodation with up to 6 persons sharing one toilet/shower room and a small kitchen/eating area.  This appears to be family holiday accommodation not suitable for several months’ occupation.  The footpath routes are noted but there is still concern that workers will use the A465 to walk along to the local public house.  There is still no detail of the general purpose store.’

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               ‘Although the site will have the capacity for 84 workers, the applicants have stated that the normal number of workers likely to be accommodated ranges between 10 and 50, with the peak being during harvesting season in August, September and October.  The number of caravans proposed in relation to the number of workers will ensure that the standard of accommodation is not cramped and each individual caravan will contain all the facilities normally associated with independent residential occupation.  The general purpose store was approved as part of the previous application and therefore does not form part of this application.’

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

Councillor DW Greenow, the Local Ward Member, noted that planning permission had been granted for permanent polytunnels on land surrounding the application site [DCCE2008/2266/F refers] and included additional planting along the boundaries which should screen the site effectively.  Councillor Greenow made a number of comments on the current application, including: the applicant was commended for the standard of accommodation and communal facilities proposed; footpath links to village facilities had been identified via existing public rights of way; the importance of soft fruit production in the county was noted; and a temporary permission would allow any impacts on the locality to be fully assessed.

Councillor PJ Edwards asked for clarification regarding: the potential number of workers and how this related to the number of mobile homes proposed; whether the expiry date for the temporary permission could be aligned to coincide with that for the polytunnels; and whether signage to direct workers to safe footpath links could be a requirement of any planning permission granted.  The Chairman said that recommended condition 9 perhaps addressed the signage issue.

Councillor AM Toon welcomed the accommodation proposed and suggested that, rather than maintain full occupancy levels in a small number of caravans, workers should be encouraged to use other caravans outside peak periods.  She did not consider that the proposal would have a signficant impact on highway safety and also felt that some of the views expressed by objectors were unfounded.

Councillor AT Oliver said that he did not have any objection to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and subdivision of existing dwelling into 3 dwellings.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and subdivision of existing dwelling into 3 dwellings.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes, a Local Ward Member, commented that the proposal represented an overintensive form of development and did not consider the access and parking arrangements to be adequate.  She also commented on existing problems in the locality and noted that Hereford City Council objected to the application.

Councillor WJ Walling, also a Local Ward Member, felt that the application would be an overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor PJ Edwards expressed concerns about the proposal and considered that it would conflict with Unitary Development Plan policies S2, DR1, DR3, H1, H15, H16 and T11.

A number of Members supported refusal of planning permission.

Councillor PA Andrews noted that the property had been constructed as a single family residence and, therefore, the sound proofing might not be sufficient for the proposed use.

In response to a question from Councillor AM Toon, the Planning Officer clarified that a single storey rear extension was permitted and this application would enlarge that extension.  Councillor Toon felt that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area, would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and expressed concerns about the access and lack of amenity space; particularly as no Section 106 contribution could be sought towards off site play areas.

The Locum Lawyer drew attention to policy H17 (Sub-division of existing homes) and reminded the Sub-Committee of the need to identify cogent reasons for refusal.

Councillor Edwards maintained that the application conflicted with the policies that he had identified earlier in the meeting.

The Sub-Committee discussed the potential for problems with the access via the car park to the rear of the property and congestion difficulties in the area.

RESOLVED:

That 

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.                  The existing property provides family accommodation within an established residential area.  The local planning authority considered that the proposed extension together with the sub-division of the main dwelling would represent an over-intensive development that would be out of keeping with the general character of the area.  In addition, the creation of a new access to the rear of the site would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the general convenience of road users by reason of the loss of the existing parking spaces in the open car park.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the Policies S2, DR1, H1, H15, H16 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

Councillor SJ Robertson, the Local Ward Member, advised that Holmer Parish Council could not send a representative to the meeting but wished to re-iterate the views expressed in its representation.  Attention was also drawn to the letters of objection, particularly the comment that the development would be out of keeping with surrounding houses.  Councillor Robertson explained the history and design of the Belle Bank Avenue development and considered that the heritage and character of the streetscape should be protected.  She considered that the proposal would be overintensive and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the area.  Councillor Robertson also expressed concerns about highway issues in the locality

Councillor PJ Edwards noted that the application was situated in a designated settlement boundary but, on balance, considered that the unique character of the street should be preserved.

Councillor RV Stockton, speaking in his capacity as the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, noted that Belle Bank Avenue had been constructed with purpose and design and commented on the potential for setting a precedent.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes commented on the need to retain green space in residential residential areas.

The Central Team Leader advised that the size of the plot was more than adequate to accommodate the development proposed and the Traffic Manager raised no objections.

RESOLVED:

That 

(i)           The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The proposal represents an overintensive form of development;

2.            would have a detrimental impact on the character and settings of the area; and

3.            would exacerbate highway issues in the locality.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Central Team Leader advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation and as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged, the matter would be referred to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]

The Chairman advised that, following changes to the Council’s Constitution, this was the final meeting of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee.  The Chairman paid tribute to the former Chairmen of the Sub-Committee, PA Andrews and DJ Fleet, and invited them to join her in thanking the Councillors and officers, current and former, that had been involved in the work of the Sub-Committee for their dedication, professionalism and support.