To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors JG Jarvis and JB Williams.

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 7th November, 2007.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7th November, 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.

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

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

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the 12 residents of Wallace Court who had previously objected to the application had now withdrawn their representations subject to the applicant carrying out a number of remedial measures and the inclusion of agreed conditions.

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.         G01 (Details of boundary treatments)

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

4.         F49 (Finished floor levels (area at risk from flooding))

            Reason: To protect the development from flooding.

5.         F32 (Details of floodlighting/external lighting)

            Reason: To safeguard local amenities.

6.         H14 (Turning and parking: change of use - domestic)

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

7.         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 national planning policy.

No development shall take place until details of the gate giving access to the emergency pedestrian route have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The gate shall be kept shut except in the event of a flood or other emergency.

            Reason:  In the interests of neighbours’ security.

9.         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the remedial measures set out in the e-mail communication of 23 November 2007 from Jason Pritchard of Edge Design Workshop Ltd.

            Reason:  To ensure the security and privacy of neighbours.

10.       E19 (Obscure glazing to windows)

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

11.       G04 (Landscaping scheme (general)

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

12.       G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general))

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

13.       Prior to the commencement of any development, details of the proposed flood defence wall, as indicated on plan WEROWY 207 entitled 'outline flood defence proposals', dated March 06, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA, in consultation with the Environment Agency.  Thereafter the wall shall be implemented and maintained, in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To protect the development from flood risk and ensure the flood defence wall is designed and built to an appropriate standard.

14.       Flood proofing techniques shall be incorporated into the design of the building, to protect the development up to the 1% plus climate change flood level.

Reason:  To protect the development from flood risk.

15.       If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

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.

Councillor CM Bartrum, the local ward member, had a number of reservations in respect of the application. He noted the concerns of the traffic manager and of the town council and felt that the application should be refused due to the poor access and the lack of natural lighting provided in the flats. In addition he felt that the application was contrary to policy H13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

A number of members expressed their concerns regarding the access to the site and agreed with the concerns raised by the local ward member.

In response to a question raised by Councillor RH Smith, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the fire authority had not been consulted during the application process. He advised Members that the traffic manager had addressed the fire and rescue concerns in his representation.

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)    Lack of natural lighting in the dwellings

C)    Contrary to Policy H13 of the UDP

(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.]

a)            Demolition of 13 Market Place, construction of shop at ground level, including ground floor of 14 Market Place and 12 flats above and including 2 flats in No. 14.

b)            Demolition of 13 market place to allow for rebuilding of shop with flats above.

a)            Demolition of 13 Market Place, construction of shop at ground level, including ground floor of 14 Market Place and 12 flats above and including 2 flats in No. 14.

b)            Demolition of 13 market place to allow for rebuilding of shop with flats above.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

• Parks, Countryside and Leisure Development Manager considers that a contribution towards sports facilities should be expected in response to Sport England proposals to increase participation in active sports.   The contribution is based on Sport England’s calculator (£630 per dwelling) and in this case the total is £7,560 which would be used towards improvements at Wilton Sports Centre.

• Economic Regeneration Officer supports this application as an opportunity to create some sizeable retail space needed in the town to attract a bigger player and this type/size of residential is hard to come by too.   Many of Ross's buildings are in poor repair and so it makes some sense to start from scratch with some of the worst examples.

• The applicant’s agent has indicated that his client considers the sports contribution to be unreasonable at this late stage – no such request was made in connection with the earlier withdrawn application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones, the applicant’s agent, had registered to speak at the meeting but chose not to do so.

Councillor PGH Cutter, one of the local ward members, noted the comments from the conservation manager and supported the application.

Councillor AE Gray, the other local ward member, was concerned that the committee were not in receipt of the Town Council’s comments.

Members discussed the application and felt that it should be deferred pending the receipt of comments from Ross Town Council.

RESOLVED

That determination of the application be deferred until after the consultation period has expired.