To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors H Bramer, JG Jarvis, and JB Williams.

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

The following declaration of interest was made:

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 10th October, 2007.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10th October, 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.

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:

• One letter of representation received from Ms J Tyler. She commented that she would object to the application if the building was re-sited lower down the site. She felt that the proposed siting was acceptable and out of view of all parties concerned.

The Chairman, speaking in the absence of the Local Ward Member, felt that the site inspection had highlighted the sensitive nature of the site. He noted that the access was poor and felt that the workshop building should be re-sited to a more suitable position.

Councillor PGH Cutter agreed with the points raised by the Chairman, he also had concerns that the neighbouring residents could suffer a loss of amenity through overlooking, and that the application was in open countryside.

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)     Concerns regarding the access to the site

B)    Loss of amenity to neighbouring residents

C)    Negative impact on the rural character of the area

(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.]

Single storey extension and alterations, and a separate workshop.

Single storey extension and alterations, and a separate workshop.

The Principal Planning Officer advised members that no representation had been received from the Parish Council.

Councillor PD Price, speaking in the absence of the local ward member, noted the officer’s recommendation and 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) (workshop)

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

3.      E06 (Restriction on Use)

         Reason: The local planning authority wish to control the specific use of the land/premises, in the interest of local amenity.

4.      E27 (Personal condition)

         Reason: The nature of the development is such that it is only considered acceptable in this location having regard to the applicant's special circumstances.

Informative(s):

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

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

Erection of six dwellings.

Erection of six dwellings.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Savage spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor PD Price, the Local Ward Member, noted that a number of the original objections had now been overcome with the revised plans. He felt that this was reflected in the Parish Council’s support of the scheme. He voiced concerns over the access and felt that this may be compromised by the addition of another dwelling.

In response to the points raised by the Local Ward Member, the Principal Planning Officer advised members that the Highways Agency were happy with the revised access and felt that the proposed parking layout was also acceptable. He also noted that the access would be finalised on completion of plot 16.

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.         E09 (No conversion of garage to habitable accommodation)

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times.

4.         E16 (Removal of permitted development rights)

            Reason: To protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

5.         A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use.  The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason:  In order to maintain the visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy LA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

6.            Notwithstanding the approved drawings, a management plan for the responsibilities and maintenance of the private road serving the six bungalows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner.  The road management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason:  In order to maintain the private road to an acceptable standard to comply with Policies S2, S6 and H13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

7.         No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water disposal including SuDs has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  Such scheme shall be implemented before the first use of the development hereby approved.

Reason:  To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to comply with Policies DR4 and DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

8.         H13 (Access, turning area and parking)

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Outline planning application for two dwellings.

Outline planning application for two dwellings.

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

Councillor MJ Fishley, the Local Ward Member noted that the Parish Council did not object to the application. She felt that there was sufficient local need for the dwellings and advised members that there were already 4 existing dwellings on the lane. She felt that the application was not contrary to policy H7 or H10 of the Unitary Development Plan and that it should be supported.

Councillor DC Taylor, the neighbouring Ward Member, noted that the application was 400 yards outside of the settlement boundary but felt that there was sufficient housing need in the area for this to outweigh the policy issues at stake. He advised Members that the applicant had offered to use part of his own garden to improve the issues surrounding the access onto the road.

The Development Control Manager advised members that the Unitary Development Plan clearly stated that housing should only be permitted within the settlement boundary. He felt that the application was clearly contrary to the policies set out in the UDP which had only been adopted by the Council in March, 2007.

Councillor RH Smith felt that the UDP no longer represented the housing needs of the County and should be revised accordingly. He felt that the proposed application should be an exception and should be approved.

Councillor PGH Cutter felt that the application was for infill development and should therefore be permitted. He also felt that the provision of two modest dwellings would benefit the village of Clehonger.

RESOLVED

The Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to the conditions set out below (and any further conditions 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.

            1)            No conditions were recommended by members.

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 approve the application to such conditions 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]

3 dwellings for rent comprising 2 no. 2 bed & 1 no. 3 bed houses

3 dwellings for rent comprising 2 no. 2 bed & 1 no. 3 bed houses.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Kingston spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor TMR McLean, the Local Ward Member, advised members that she had proposed refusal of the previous application on this site on grounds of design. She noted that the applicant had resubmitted the application with amended plans but still felt there were a number of other concerns that hadn’t been addressed. She felt that the plot was not large enough to accommodate 3 dwellings and that granting the application would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring church and residential dwellings.

Councillor RH Smith agreed with the concerns raised by the local ward member but he also felt that the poor access onto the site should be added as a reason for refusal.

In response to the points raised by members, the Senior Planning Officer advised them that he felt that the reasons for refusal outlined in 6.3 had been addressed by the applicant. Councillor TMR McLean felt that further reasons for refusal had been highlighted during a visit to the site.

Councillor PD Price felt that the application should be supported, he noted that the application fell within the settlement boundary and that the access and the location were acceptable.

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)     Plot too small for 3 dwellings.

B)    Loss of amenity to neighbouring listed building.

(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 existing garage. Extension to form annexe accommodation, new garage and larger porch/utility room. New dormer window to existing property.

Demolition of existing garage. Extension to form annexe accommodation, new garage and larger porch/utility room. New dormer window to existing property.

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

Councillor JA Hyde, the local ward member, felt that the application should be approved contrary to the views of the parish council. She felt that the conditions would address any concerns raised.

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.      B02 (Matching external materials (extension))

         Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building.

3.      E15 (Restriction on separate sale)

         Reason: It would be contrary to the policy of the local planning authority to grant consent for a separate dwelling in this location.

Informative(s):

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

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

Erection of a detached dwelling.

Erection of a detached dwelling.

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.      F48 (Details of slab levels)

         Reason: In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site.

4.      G09 (Retention of trees/hedgerows)

         Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

5.      H12 (Parking and turning – single house (2 cars))

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

Informative(s):

1.      HN01 - Mud on highway

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

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

Removal of condition 4 of planning application SE2002/0386/F to allow continued letting of building that was developed for ancillary accommodation (retrospective application).

Removal of condition 4 of planning application SE2002/0386/F to allow continued letting of building that was developed for ancillary accommodation (retrospective application).

Councillor CM Bartrum, the Local Ward Member, noted that the majority of the objections raised by local residents related to congestion. He also advised members that Ross Town Council had not objected to the application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted.

Informative(s):

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt

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

Proposed additional unit to approved scheme ref: DCSE2007/0645/F.

Proposed additional unit to approved scheme ref: DCSE2007/0645/F.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Two further letters of representation have been received, one of which has been signed by 10 residents of Wallace court. A number of points in relation to the dry access, boundary wall, water storage, site maintenance and overlooking are raised.

The Principal Planning Officer advised members of an addition condition which would cover the aspect of the dry pedestrian access. He also advised Members that the applicant had been asked to consider an additional boundary wall.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct Councillor AE Gray, 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, Mrs Harvey spoke in objection to the application and Mr Pritchard, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

Councillor PGH Cutter proposed a site inspection on the following grounds that the character or appearance of the development itself were a fundamental planning consideration and thatthe 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 reasons:

• the character or appearance of the development itself is a fundamental planning consideration
• the setting and surroundings are fundamental to the determination or to the conditions being considered.

Three arm roundabout on the alignment of the existing A40(T). Location on A40(T) highway.

Three arm roundabout on the alignment of the existing A40(T). Location on A40(T) highway.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• A supporting letter from the applicant’s agent, full details of this letter were submitted to all attendees of the sub-committee in the officer’s update sheet.

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

Councillor PGH Cutter, one of the local ward members, had concerns in respect of the figures relating to traffic statistics. He questioned the accuracy of the figures if no readings had been taken on the site. He also had concerns in respect of noise and road safety and felt that appropriate signage would be required to advise road users of the approaching roundabout.

Councillor AE Gray, the other local ward member, felt that illuminated signs would help address some of the concerns regarding road safety.

Councillor JA Hyde felt that the proposed conditions covered a number of the objections raised by the local residents. She also felt that there should be provision of an access for the caravan park off the roundabout.

In response to a number of points raised by members, the Principal Planning Officer advised that an access to the caravan park had been included in the design. He also confirmed that the Highways Agency had carried out a road safety audit and were happy with the applicant’s proposal. In response to the request for illuminated signage and a reduced speed limit, he confirmed that the sub-committee could not condition these aspects as they fell under the remit of the Highways Agency. In respect of the issues relating to noise, the Principal Planning Officer advised members that they Environmental Health Officer had used widely accepted methods and was satisfied with the results.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that a condition could be added to the resolution to cover the issue of noise monitoring on the site.

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       G01 (Details of boundary treatments)

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

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       No development shall take place until a scheme for monitoring the noise of traffic along the A40(T) within the application site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall make provision for monitoring noise levels at the southern façade of 13 Chatsworth Close before the roundabout is constructed and at 6 month and 12 months after the roundabout is completed and opened to vehicular traffic.  The results of noise monitoring shall be made available to the local planning authority no later  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

A)     Erection of Aldi Discount Foodstore with associated parking, landscaping and access.

B)     Demolition of existing buildings to facilitate redevelopment for Aldi Foodstore.

A)     Erection of Aldi Discount Foodstore with associated parking, landscaping and access.

B)     Demolition of existing buildings to facilitate redevelopment for Aldi Foodstore.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• A further letter of correspondence from English Heritage who confirmed that their original comments still stood despite the revised plans. They also had concerns regarding the close-boarded fence on the north of the site.
• A further letter of correspondence from the Environment Agency relating to PPS25, Sewer Diversion, Finished Floor Levels, Flood Storage, Flood Flows, Access, and Surface Water, full details of this letter were included in the update sheet which was circulated at the meeting.
• A letter from the applicant’s agent advising the committee that the Aldi were prepared to increase their financial contribution to £40,000 for all works included in the section 106 agreement. In addition to this they were willing to pay up to £5000 for any TRO required.

He also reported the following comments in the update sheet:

• The conservation manager has indicated that the revised drawings meet his concerns with regard to the design of the store. The applicant’s architect is reconsidering the boundary treatment and further revised drawings will be submitted.
• The Environment Agency has withdrawn its objection subject to conditions. I consider that diversion of the sewer can be adequately covered by a condition and does not need to be included in the S106 agreement.
• Revised drawings for the access are still awaited.

The Principal Planning Officer advised Members of the revised contribution offered by the applicant. He confirmed that the Transport Manager had accepted the contribution outlined in the amended draft heads of terms, detailed below.

HEADS OF TERMS

1.         A contribution of £20,000 towards upgrading of bus stops.

2.         A contribution of £17,500 towards upgrading footpaths to shared use and other pedestrian links.

3.         A contribution of £2,500 towards the adjoining public car park.

4.         To meet the costs of a TRO required in connection with the development up to a maximum sum of £5,000.

5.         To undertake to amend the access to the store once a TRO has been made and implemented in accordance with the approved drawings and an agreed timetable.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Reynolds spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the residents of Fontaine Court.

Councillor CM Bartrum, one of the Local Ward Members, noted that outline planning permission was initially granted in 1999, he felt that the site was currently an eyesore and felt that approving the application would improve the area. He noted the concerns raised by the residents of Fontaine Court and felt that they should be consulted in respect of landscaping and overlooking.

Councillor TMR McLean felt that the scheme needed to go ahead but felt disappointed that a larger supermarket chain had not shown an interest in the site. She felt that a condition limiting delivery times would help allay some of the concerns of the local residents.

Councillor PGH Cutter felt that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Conversion of and first and second floor extension to disused garage building at rear of hotel to create three storey building of 9 no. flats.

Conversion of and first and second floor extension to disused garage building at rear of hotel to create three storey building of 9 no. flats.

RESOLVED:

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

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