To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made:

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September, 2007.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September, 2007 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To note the contents of the attached report of the Head of Planning Services in respect of the appeals received or determined for the southern area of Herefordshire.

The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s current position in respect of planning appeals for the southern area of Herefordshire.

Replacement semi-detached cottages in lieu of dilapidated 1960’s bungalow.

Replacement semi-detached cottages in lieu of dilapidated 1960’s bungalow.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Amended plans have been received that set back the garages as per the comments of the Conservation Manager.

Councillor TMR McLean, the local ward member, felt that the new bungalows would be close to the neighbouring dwellings. She noted the comments from the Parish Council and on balance felt that the application should be approved.

RESOLVED

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 (Samples of external materials)

Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

3       C14 (Signing of contract before demolition)

         Reason: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

4       E18 (No new windows in specified elevation)

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

5       H03 (Visibility splays)

6       H05 (Access gates)

7       H09 (Driveway gradient)

8       H12 (Parking and turning - single house)

9       H27 (Parking for site operatives)

INFORMATIVES:

1       HN01 - Mud on highway

2       HN04 - Private apparatus within highway

3       HN05 - Works within the highway

4       HN10 - No drainage to discharge to highway

5       HN21 - Extraordinary maintenance

6       HN22 - Works adjoining highway

7       N19 - Avoidance of doubt

8       N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission.

Replacement sign on the corner of Walford Road and The Avenue.

Replacement sign on the corner of Walford Road and The Avenue.

In response to a question from Councillor H Bramer, the Legal Practice Manager advised members of the recently adopted code of conduct. He confirmed that any member who declared a prejudicial interest would be permitted to speak on the item before leaving the meeting for the debate and vote.

Councillor JB Williams was elected as Chairman for the item as The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee had declared a prejudicial interest and had therefore left the meeting for the duration of the item.

RESOLVED

That express consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

1      I01 (Time limit on consent)

2      A09 (Amended plans)

Proposed general storage building.

Proposed general storage building.

Councillor DC Taylor, the local ward member, noted the concerns of the Parish Council but felt that the application should be approved as long as the conditions relating to agricultural usage were strongly enforced.

In response to a question from Councillor H Bramer, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that planning permission was only required as the smallholding was under 5 hectares.

RESOLVED

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.       The premises shall be used for agricultural purposes and for no other purpose.

         Reason:  In order to define the terms to which the application relates.

Informative(s):

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

2.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

Extension to provide kitchen stores, toilets and owners bedrooms. New building to provide 8 guest rooms and 2 staff bedrooms.

Extension to provide kitchen stores, toilets and owners bedrooms. New building to provide 8 guest rooms and 2 staff bedrooms.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Dorstone Parish Council support the application with the following observations

1          Surface water, with the new building and surfacing of the car park concern, the ground will not cope with the additional storm water.

2.         Whilst noting improvement to the sewerage disposal need to ensure highway    piped ditch can handle the volume discharging into the stream can handle the volume discharging into the stream.

3.         Limited car parking spaces, whilst plan indicates increase, some of these spaces will be occupied by residents of the accommodation therefore not available to pub visitors .

4.         Light intrusion of new building, car park and disabled entrance. Info and agreement on number and usage required.

5.         The new accommodation block is not to be separated from the Pandy Inn.

• Note letter sent re exceeding return date, due to putting application on Public display.

• The Council have received a letter from Mr & Mrs Longbottom, copy sent to Mr Prior”

• Five letters of support for the proposal have been received raising the following main points:

-                 allows applicants to comply with regulations including EEC ones, and Environmental Health regulations with the new kitchen .

-                 new toilet facilities required

-                 new building will meet the demands of tourist and stabilise business

-                 shop has closed need Pandy

-                 many pubs/restaurants in area struggling through  lack of investment and staff

-                 standard of catering and cooking very high at Pandy. Supports local business, local events and charities

-                 Smoking Ban has affected village inns, proposed work gives the Pandy a chance for survival .

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the issues raised by Dorstone Parish Council had been addressed in the Officer’s Appraisal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr. Longbottom and Mr. Davies spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Gannon, the applicant, spoke in support.

Councillor PD Price, the local ward member felt that granting the application would benefit the village of Dorstone and therefore supported the application.

Councillor H Bramer voiced a number of concerns in respect of the games room, the sceptic tank and also the smoking area. He felt that the concerns of the local residents should be addressed through conditions but on balance he supported the application.

Members discussed the application thoroughly and felt that concerns regarding the smoking ban in licensed premises were not a matter of debate for the sub-committee and should be dealt with through the Regulatory Committee.

RESOLVED

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 (Samples of external materials)

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

3.      C02 (Approval of details)

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of architectural or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Conversion of attic to provide additional residential space (2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom).

Conversion of attic to provide additional residential space (2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Hayter, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor MJ Fishley, the local ward member, noted the concerns of the neighbouring resident but felt that the use of obscured glazing addressed these concerns fully. She therefore supported the application.

RESOLVED

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.      E19 (Obscure glazing to windows)           

         Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

Informative(s):

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

2.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

3.      The applicant’s attention is drawn to The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and subsequent legislation protecting sites used by bats and nesting birds.

Construction of garage/workshop building to accompany shop barn.

Construction of garage/workshop building to accompany shop barn.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• A further letter of representation has been received from:

Dr EA Waters & Mrs JE Waters, The Barn ,Pwll-yr-Hunt, Pudding Street, Rowlestone , HR2 OHF

The following main points are made:

may recall that part of the application to build garage/workshop was to avoid unnecessary parking in front of farmhouse and between it and Shop Barn.  Despite this a boat has been parked less than 5 metres from our house, considered to be a similar ‘blight’ on the environment.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that the boat was parked outside the application site and therefore not a matter that has a direct bearing on the proposal made.

Councillor JB Williams, the local ward member had concerns in respect of the location and the need for the new workshop.

The Conservation Manager felt that the location of the workshop was the most appropriate option due to the limited nature of the site. He felt that members may benefit from a site inspection in order to familiarise themselves with the application site.

Councillor RH Smith proposed a site inspection on the grounds that the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for a site inspection for the following reason:

• the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Site for 5 dwellings, comprising 3 no. 4 bedroom two-storey dwellings and 2 no. semi-detached 3 bedroom dwellings.

Site for 5 dwellings, comprising 3 no. 4 bedroom two-storey dwellings and 2 no. semi-detached 3 bedroom dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Two further letters have been received from the applicants’ agent. The following main points are made:

-                 my clients are in agreement that a 7 metres access strip be provided and that footpath issues can be resolved at a later date

-                 confirm that the number of houses can be agreed mutually at a later date

He also advised members that the applicant had agreed to alter the description to that of residential development without specifying the number of dwellings at this stage.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Jones, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Ponting, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor H Bramer was concerned that the number of dwellings had now been removed from the application title. He Felt that members would be happier to grant permission if they knew how many dwellings were planned. In response to comments by Councillor Bramer, the Southern Team Leader advised members that the original application referred to 5 dwellings In the title. He felt that these details should be determined when the application came back to committee for full consent.

Councillor JG Jarvis felt that the indicative plan supplied by the agent showing 5 dwellings was not acceptable. He felt that the applicant should aim to reduce the number of proposed dwellings on the site.

RESOLVED

That subject to the description being revised omitting mention of 5 dwellings, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

1.      A02 (Time limit for submission of reserved matters (outline permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      A03 (Time limit for commencement (outline permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3.      A04 (Approval of reserved matters)

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development.

4.      A05 (Plans and particulars of reserved matters)

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.   Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 72.37m AOD unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

         Reason:  To protect the development from flood risk for the lifetime of the development.

6.      There shall be no new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences) or raised ground levels within

a)       7 metres of the top of any bank of the watercourse (Dulas Brook), inside or along the boundary of the site, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority.

         Reason:  To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or improvements and provide for any overland flood flows.

7.      The proposals outlined in the ecologist's  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Proposed single storey link between dwelling and double garage to accommodate ground floor study/bedroom and en-suite facility and form rear extension.

Proposed single storey link between dwelling and double garage to accommodate ground floor study/bedroom and en-suite facility and form rear extension.

Councillor JA Hyde, the local ward member, noted the concerns of the Parish Council and felt that the application was unacceptable in open countryside. She felt that the current dwelling was too large and believed the proposed application was a step too far.

In response to the points raised by the local ward member, the Development Control Manager felt that refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal as the existing dwelling and garage had already been permitted. He also noted that the consultation period had not yet expired so Members would be advised to delegate the decision to officers.

RESOLVED

That:   (i)    That subject to no further representations being received before the end of the consultation period, the Southern 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 Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

A)     The application is unacceptable in open countryside.

B)    The dwelling is too large.

(ii)   If the Head of Planning Services 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 Development Control Manager advised that he would refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]

Demolition of school hall and erection of a two-storey block of four flats and conversion of The Retreat to three flats.

Demolition of school hall and erection of a two-storey block of four flats and conversion of The Retreat to three flats.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct Councillor PGH Cutter, who had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the item addressed the sub-committee before withdrawing from the meeting for the ensuing debate and vote.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor AE Gray, one of the local ward members, noted that the planning inspector had upheld the original decision to refuse the previous application on the site. She felt that the 15 trees on the site that had been described as exceptional, notable, or generally good should be protected during the construction process.

Members discussed the application and felt that the condition regarding fencing should be amended to ensure that a solid fence be provided to ensure the protection of children in the neighbouring school.

RESOLVED

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       C02 (Approval of details)

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of architectural or historical interest.

3       G04 (Landscaping scheme (general))

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

4       G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general))

Reason:  In order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

5       G01 (Details of boundary treatments)

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

6       W01 (Foul/surface water drainage)

Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

7       W02 (No surface water to connect to public system)

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

8       W03 (No drainage run-off to public system)

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

9       The foul only discharge from the proposed development must be connected to the 225mm public combined sewer at manhole SO59237401, located at the junction of Palmerston Road and Walford Road.

Reason:  To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

10     H08 (Access closure)

Reason: To ensure the safe and free flow of traffic using the adjoining County highway.

11     H11 (Parking - estate development (more than one house))

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

12     H27 (Parking for site operatives)

Reason: To prevent indiscriminate parking in the interests of highway safety.

13     H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision)

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure covered cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Conservation, repairs and alterations.

Conservation, repairs and alterations.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Two letters and a photograph have been received from the applicant responding to the report to Committee, which are in summary:

The project involves a wide range of works (up to £½ million excluding porch and demolition) to which there is no objection.

The area of contention is therefore small.

Approach to the house has been from the north since at least 1838 – there has never been vehicular access to west front and to do so would involve demolition of C18 gates, pillars and walls, which is inconceivable.

Unlikely that west porch contemporary with original entrance (there have been many entrances although the north entrance was never the principal one).

The north façade was demoted at end of C18 when Georgian windows replaced stone mullion windows.

North elevation is the first to be seen when approaching the house and therefore appropriate to have main entrance door.

Huntsham Court has been altered to reflect the living and farming practices of the day – the current proposal seeks to continue this process rather than being fixed in its current stage.

            Proposed Porch

Old Court Hotel (photograph submitted) which is of similar construction, size and exactly contemporary, has a two-storey porch.

We agree that flight of steps means the porch will read differently from comparable houses but 2-storey porch will read much more pleasingly on this rather tall and narrow façade.

There is a plinth running across façade of ground floor level which with planting should reduce the usual impact of the changes.

Whilst not a reason to demolish the pigsties, it is a source of suitable building stone which may not otherwise be available.

The porch should be in keeping with the C17 architecture of the north façade not the C18 additions to the west front.

            Demolition of redundant pigsties

English Heritage and SPAB broadly support; Georgian Group urges caution but does not oppose; Ancient Monuments Society has not visited the site.

Huntsham Court has never been a ‘home farm’ the pigsties were thrown up by a tenant to meet a farming need.  Now back in family hands we are anxious it should revert to a small gentry house and to reverse utilitarian changes.

The pigsties are too small for horses and there is stabling elsewhere.  Is it acceptable in C21 to have pig housing adjacent to a house?

The north and west sides of the building, which are open to view, are of very poor quality stone.

Insufficient emphasis given in officer’s advice to paragraph 1.3 of PPG15 and Charles Mynor’s work “Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments”.

            Proposed new driveway

Planning permission granted in 1986 (SH860471PF) included a new access and drive to car parking area, which followed closely line of access drive now proposed – it was used for following 12 years but now largely obscured by grass.  However it is still needed for large lorries which causes problems in Winter.

Trees in this field planted to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Demolition of redundant ambulance station and erection of 6 no. two bed flats.

Demolition of redundant ambulance station and erection of 6 no. two bed flats.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• 1 further letter of objection received:

(1)               nearby car park is not used at night and residents park outside their houses; even during the day the street is full of cars.

(2)               Edde Cross Street only route into the town from Wilton causing congestion.

(3)               Six flats, no garages and a flat roof!

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Wells, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor AE Gray proposed a site inspection on the grounds that the setting and surroundings were fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Councillor TMR McLean felt that a site inspection would not be necessary as the photographs shown in the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation were sufficient. She also felt that most members were aware of the location.

Following the comments from Councillor TMR McLean, Councillor AE Gray withdrew the motion for a site inspection.

Councillor RH Smith felt that he could not support the application as it was not in keeping with the surrounding dwellings and would not enhance or preserve the conservation area. He also had reservations in respect of the number of parking spaces provided.

Councillor TMR McLean felt that the site was suitable for development but felt the current proposal was unacceptable on design grounds.

RESOLVED

That:   (i)    The Southern 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 Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

A)     The application would not enhance or preserve the conservation area.

B)    The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding dwellings.

(ii)   If the Head of Planning Services 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 Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]