To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors BA Durkin, AE Gray and JA Hyde.

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

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor JG Jarvis asked for advice from the Principal Lawyer in order to determine whether he should declare an interest in agenda item 9. He confirmed that he was currently being investigated at the request of the assessment sub-committee in respect of an alleged breach of the code of conduct and that part of the complaint related to Thorny Orchard. He added that he had no beneficial interest in the property. The Principal Lawyer referred to Appendix 12 of the constitution and felt that Councillor Jarvis had no personal or prejudicial interest in the application.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2008.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2008 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 outline planning permission for the redevelopment of existing site for a mixed use development including business/general industrial (B1 (B, C), B2) and bulky goods retail (A1) uses.

Proposed outline planning permission for the redevelopment of existing site for a mixed use development including business/general industrial (B1 (B, C), B2) and bulky goods retail (A1) uses.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members of amendments to conditions 5 and 17 as well as the addition of two new conditions. Full details appeared in the update sheet circulated at the meeting and the amendments are included in the resolution below.

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

Members discussed the application and felt that the proposed redevelopment of the site would be beneficial to the town of Ross-on-Wye. They felt that it would enhance the area but voiced some concerns regarding the impact the development could have on town centre trading.

Councillor RH Smith was concerned that the financial contribution from the applicant was being directed solely to highways, he asked the Chairman to confirm that he had been consulted during the Section 106 process regarding the allocation of any contribution received. The Chairman advised Councillor Smith that he had been reassured that consultation would take place once the funds were secured. Councillor Smith noted that section 2.2.4 of the Planning Obligations SPD required heads of terms to be agreed with the local ward member prior to the application coming before the sub-committee.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that transportation were the only Council department who had requested funds in order to improve the highway network.

The Head of Planning and Transportation noted the concerns raised by Councillor Smith, he added that all contributions received through the section 106 agreement had to be used to mitigate the impacts caused by granting the application.

Councillor JG Jarvis, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing, noted the concerns raised in respect of the section 106 agreement and requested a meeting with the Head of Planning and Transportation in order to ensure the correct process was being followed.

RESOLVED

That:

1)      Subject to securing a resolution to approve planning permission, the application be advertised as a departure and further consideration be given on the need to notify the Secretary of State based upon the responses received.

2)      The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a planning obligation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regarding contributions towards improved footway/cycle way links and off-site highway works and any additional matters and terms as he considers appropriate.

3)      Upon completion of the aforementioned planning obligation, and in consultation with the Chairman and Local Ward Member, that 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Erection of retail warehousing (A1 non food)

Erection of retail warehousing (A1 non food)

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

A letter received from the applicant confirmed:

1.         Halfords have now, since you prepared the report, confirmed their intention to take the third unit.  The development is therefore committed, subject to planning.

2.         With respect to item 1 of the recommendation referring to departure aspects.  I feel it would be beneficial if the Committee were made aware that this related to the AONB status, as described in your report item 6.2, and policy LA1, rather than other issues such as employment land.

An updated Travel Plan was received on 13 October that included the recommendations of the Sustainable Travel Officer.

In accordance with the criteria for public speakers Mr Woodman, representing Hereford and Worcester Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor RH Smith noted the concerns raised by the Forward Planning Manager who questioned the need for the development. He also felt that the application was contrary to Policy LA1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan as the site fell within an area of outstanding natural beauty. He went on to note that the retail units intended to sell bulk goods and therefore questioned the need for a section 106 contribution towards footpath and cycle path improvements and felt that the funds would be better allocated on improving the roundabout at the entrance to the site. In summing up he voiced his concerns in respect of the negative effect that granting the application could have on the town centre and felt that he could therefore not support the application.

Councillor H Bramer concurred with the comments of Councillor Smith and felt that the application should be refused as it was contrary to policy LA1. He added that he also had concerns regarding the design of the units and the access to the site from the A449/A40 roundabout.

Councillor PGH Cutter, the Chairman speaking in his capacity of local ward member, agreed that granting the application could have a negative impact on the town centre of Ross-on-Wye. He felt that the traffic manager’s proposal to re-route the local bus service in order to service the site was a positive move.

A number of members felt that the application would have an adverse effect on the town centre as well as being concerned as to the suitability of the existing roundabout at the access to the site. Other members noted that the transport assessment had concluded that there would be no material impact on the A449/A40 roundabout.

A motion to refuse the application failed and the resolution below was then agreed.

RESOLVED

That:

1)      Subject to securing a resolution to approve planning permission, the application be advertised as a departure to the development plan and further consideration be given to the need to notify the Secretary of State based upon the responses received.

2)      The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a planning obligation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Installation of small domestic wind turbine.

Installation of small domestic wind turbine.

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

Councillor PD Price, the local ward member, noted the concerns of the Parish Council and had reservations regarding the efficiency savings generated by wind turbines.

Members noted that on previous occasions wind turbine applications had been refused by the sub-committee but consequently allowed following appeal. They had some reservations regarding the location of the wind turbine as it could be clearly seen from the B4348 and also requested guidance regarding levels of noise. They noted PPS22, the government guidance regarding sustainable energy, and on balance felt that the application should be approved.

Members noted that the Planning Committee were due to attend a site visit in the near future which related to a wind farm. The Head of Planning and Transportation advised that the application due to come before the Planning Committee was a considerably larger application and advised them that the current proposal should be determined on its own merit.

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 (Development in accordance with the approved plans )

Reason. To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development and to comply with Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.         G13 (Tree planting )

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

Informatives:

1.         The applicant is requested to notify the Defence Estates Safeguarding Officer the date construction starts and ends, the maximum height of any construction equipment and latitude and longitude of the turbine in order that it is plotted on the flying charts.

2.         N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

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

Single and two-storey extensions.

Single and two-storey extensions.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following:

One further letter of objection had been received from Mary Pytel, Pytel Sculpture, Hartleton, Bromsash, Ross-on-Wye, HR9 7SB.  The content was summarised as follows:

·         The proposal amounts to a doubling in size of the former lodge building, which has already been extended;

·         The existing extension is already out of character as it is finished in render, not local stone, which is the predominant material in the locality;

·         The property is in an elevated position, so an additional extension would be a ‘disaster.’

He also reported the comments of Linton Parish Council who stated:

Taking into account submissions made to the Parish Council yesterday (13.10.08) we ask you to note a local residents concerns that windows on the extension would invade her privacy and be to the detriment of the amenities she now enjoys. Other local residents were concerned at the size of the extension and the prominence of its position, also trees and shrubs had been removed from the garden to accommodate the extension making it even more visible.

Councillors were surprised to note that the Planning Officer confirmed that there was no record of previous extensions to the house.  Parishioners recall an extension being built onto a small stone cottage in the early to mid l990s; we suggest that a site visit should have confirmed this as the extension is clearly visible. UDP Policy H18 – 1. requires the original building to be the dominant feature. We suggest that this extension does not meet that requirement.

If the Planning Committee decide to grant permission for this development great care should be taken that the detailed design and materials are in keeping with the neighbouring buildings i.e. local stone.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that there was some conjecture as to the date of the previous extension to the property.  A further planning history search had revealed that permission was granted on 23 September 1968 (Code no. 26246) for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling.  The additions approved under this permission refered to the rendered section of the existing dwelling.  It would appear, therefore, that the most recent extension to the property dated from the late 1960s and not the early to mid 1990s.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Dr Bartensham, representing the local residents, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor H Bramer, the local ward member, noted that the previously approved extension to the original stone building was large in scale. He felt that approving the application would be contrary to Policy H18 of the Unitary Development Plan as the original dwelling would not remain the dominant feature.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Construction of retaining wall.

Construction of retaining wall.

Councillor JG Jarvis, the local ward member, felt that a site inspection would be beneficial to members prior to determining the application. He therefore proposed a site inspection as he felt that a judgement was required on visual impact.

RESOLVED

That the determination of the application be deferred pending a site inspection on the following grounds:

i)                    A judgement is required on visual impact

Replacement of steel framed stable etc building with oak framed garage/storage/studio building, enlargement to residential curtilage, formation of ecology pond and improvement to vehicular access.

Replacement of steel framed stable etc building with oak framed garage/storage/studio building, enlargement to residential curtilage, formation of ecology pond and improvement to vehicular access.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.      Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3(1) and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development which would otherwise be permitted under Class E of Part 1 shall be carried out within the extended residential curtilage hereby approved.

         Reason:  In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy H13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2.      Any works carried out to the existing building (identified as a shed on the approved site plan) adjoining the pond shall be the subject of the prior written approval of the local planning authority.  This building shall remain as an ancillary building to Well Cottage in accordance with Condition 3.

         Reason: To ensure that the building is used only for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3.      F07 (Domestic use only of garage/store/studio)

         Reason: To ensure that the building is used only for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.      F13 (Restriction on separate sale)

         Reason:  It would be contrary to the policy of the local planning authority to grant permission for a separate dwelling in this location having regard to Policy H7 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.      H05 (Access gates ) (5 metres)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to conform with the requirements of Policy DR3 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

Informatives:

1.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

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

Provision of 6 affordable (discounted market housing) dwellings, bio-disc treatment plant and use of existing access, 6 attached single garages.

Provision of 6 affordable (discounted market housing) dwellings, bio-disc treatment plant and use of existing access, 6 attached single garages.

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

Councillor MJ Fishley, one of the local ward members, noted that the map included in the officer’s report did not include all of the dwellings in the vicinity. She felt that the maps were only of use to members if they were up to date. She felt that the proposed expansion to the site was reasonable and noted that Orcop parish council were in support of the application. In summing up she felt that approving the application would result in good quality, affordable homes for the residents of Orcop and she therefore moved approval of the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor RH Smith, the other local ward member, noted that the existing 6 discounted market value dwellings were approved following a housing needs survey which identified a need of 18 dwellings. He felt that Orcop Hill was a cohesive community with a public house, a chapel and a bus service and would be an ideal location for affordable housing. However he noted that the application was contrary to UDP Policy H10 which permitted one development of affordable housing subject to an identifiable need. He added that the Sub-Committee may be persuaded to approve an application contrary to Policy H10 as long as a housing needs survey was completed to quantify the requirement. He added that this would also be subject to the provision of a suitable site with community and Parish Council support as well as the provision of affordable housing under the precise definition. In summing up he felt that the applicant’s proposal to reduce the market price of the dwellings by 30% did not constitute affordable housing and that coupled with the lack of a recent housing needs survey left him with no option but to support the officer’s recommendation.

Members discussed the application and had concerns regarding the affordability of the proposed dwellings. They also had strong reservations regarding the allocation of the previous dwellings and felt that a number of these had not been allocated to local residents. They felt that it would be beneficial to defer determination of the application in order to consult with Strategic Housing in respect of the matter.

RESOLVED

That determination of the application be deferred pending further information from Strategic Housing and the applicant.

Proposed replacement of existing bungalow with permission to extend with new two storey dwelling of same size as extended bungalow.

Proposed replacement of existing bungalow with permission to extend with new two storey dwelling of same size as extended bungalow.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Wood-Power, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor RH Smith, the local ward member, noted the concerns of the public speaker but felt that approving the application would have a minor impact on traffic movements and therefore moved the officer’s recommendation.

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 (Development in accordance with approved plans and materials )

Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans and to protect the general character and amenities of the area in accordance with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

3.         H10 (Parking - single house )

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway and to conform with the requirements of Policy T11 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

4.         F14 (Removal of permitted development rights)

Reason:  In order to protect the character and amenity of the locality, to maintain the amenities of adjoining property and to comply with Policy H13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1.         N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

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