To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors H Bramer and DC Taylor.

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.

5.         DCSE2008/2740/F - 9 GOODRICH CLOSE, ROSS-ON-WYE,       HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5UX. (Agenda Item 5).

            Councillor G Lucas; Prejudicial; Friend of the applicant.

7.         DCSE2008/2815/F - GARDNER BUTCHER GARAGES, 30 KYRLE STREET,       ROSS-ON-WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 7DB. (Agenda Item 7).

            Councillor G Lucas; Prejudicial; Friend of the applicant.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2009.

Councillor RH Smith noted that he was not the Local Ward Member but that he spoke on behalf of the Local Ward Member in respect of minute number 81

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on January 21 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the aforementioned amendment.

To be noted.

The Sub-Committee noted the Council’s current position in respect of Section 106 agreements determined under delegated powers for the southern area of Herefordshire.

Single storey rear extension to provide wheelchair accessible facilities.

Single storey rear extension to provide wheelchair accessible facilities.

Councillor CM Bartrum, the Local Ward Member, felt that his initial concerns had been resolved through the amended plans submitted by the applicant and he therefore moved the 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          B03 (Amended plans)

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

3          F15 (No windows in side elevation of extension)

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives:

1          N19 - Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

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

Construction of one single storey and two two-storey extensions to existing residential care home.

Construction of two single storey and one two-storey extensions to existing residential care home.

The Southern Team Leader reported that the agent had written a further letter on the issue of over-development. This identified that Herefordshire Council had no adopted standards on external amenity space provision for residents of care homes. The agent was also aware of a study into the issue, which had been conducted by a planning consultant pursuant to a recent planning appeal lodged by the applicant elsewhere in the country. This had revealed that a number of local authorities had adopted minimum standards for the provision of external amenity space, ranging from 5 sq.m (Newham) to 17 sq.m (Mansfield District Council). 

The useable amenity space at West Bank following the extension would equate to 1,520 sq.m, which when divided by the 42 residents would result in a level of provision equating to 36 sq.m per resident. This was more than double the highest adopted requirement by any authority that the applicant’s planning consultant had been able to identify. The agent considered this to demonstrate that the provision of external amenity space would remain appropriate.

The Southern Team Leader added that the description of the development in the Agenda was incorrect and should read “CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE STOREY AND ONE TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS…”

Councillor AE Gray, the Local Ward Member, thanked Officers for arranging a comprehensive site inspection. She had a number of concerns regarding the application and she was of the opinion that granting planning permission on the site would harm the character of the area. She advised the Sub-Committee that West Bank was a care home and not a nursing home and that the application would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. She also voiced her concerns in respect of noise and light emanating from the premises and causing a disturbance to the neighbouring residents as well as foul water issues on the site.

Members discussed the application and had concerns regarding the continued expansion of the site. They felt that the footprint of the building was already too large and that granting the application would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring dwellings. They noted that the application site fell within a residential area and was also within an area of outstanding natural beauty.

In response to a number of points made by Members, the Southern Team Leader advised that the site benefitted from mains drainage and that Welsh Water had not objected to the application and the drainage issues discussed could be addressed through suitable conditions if necessary. He added that car parking provisions had been increased and were deemed acceptable by the Highways Engineer together with the means of access. In response to a question from Councillor Jarvis it was acknowledged that the site plan included in the agenda pack was out of date but was the most recent OS plan that was available. He advised that it was provided solely as a location plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Proposed development of 13 no. new residential units 7 no. 3-4 bed houses, 3 no. 2 bed flats, 2 no. 2 bed houses and 1no. bed units with demolition works to remove existing garage and MOT Centre.

Proposed development of 13 no. new residential units 7 no. 3-4 bed houses, 3 no. 2 bed flats, 2 no. 2 bed houses and 1no.bed units with demolition works to remove existing garage and MOT Centre.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following comments received from the Conservation Manager:

• Roof form – the design & access statement goes to some lengths to argue that an array of symmetrical gables will not ‘work’ in the streetscape, but sidesteps my fundamental point that virtually all terraced houses have eaves and ridges parallel to the street. If monopitch roofs are to be used for purely aesthetic reasons, as here, the design must acknowledge that they set up a very strong rhythm which does not accommodate deviation: the reversed handing of units 12 & 13 is a case in point. Indeed there is no objective reason why these units need to be planned any differently to units 7-11, as reinstating a continuous street frontage is one of the key urban design objectives for the site.
• Active frontage – the dominance of deep voids (car ports, bin stores etc) at street level hardly constitutes an ‘active’ frontage, and the decision to provide two parking spaces per unit in units 7-13 rather than the minimum is a major contributor to this. Whilst accepting that the set back has been minimised and is necessary for visibility purposes, any token planting in this strip will not be viable and realistically it should be treated as an extension of the pavement. Similarly the lawns in front of units 12 & 13 are too exposed to be usable as amenity space and it might be better to offer this space at the rear.
• Parking provision – the public impact of providing two spaces per unit in 7-13 has been described above but it should also be noted that it impinges directly on the amenity of the gardens in units 7-11. The provision of first floor terraces is not necessarily compensation as they are responses to the projecting garages rather than features incorporated from first principles.
• Colour palette – the occurrence of boldly coloured elevations in Kyrle Street is a recent, atypical phenomenon and I welcome the confinement of colour accents to the timber oriels.

Conclusion/Recommendation:

Whilst I have no objection to the principle of a residential development on this site, I cannot support this scheme in its present form for the reasons given above; in particular I consider the relationship of units 12 & 13 to the rest of the scheme to be incongruous.”

In response to this comment the applicant has submitted amended plans which the Conservation Manager comments:

“The agents have grasped my point about the rhythm of the street elevations by reversing the handing of units 12 & 13 but have not addressed my other concerns.  The position of units 12 & 13 set back relative to units 7-11 still does not achieve the objective of re-instating a continuous frontage and the re-positioning of units 7-11 further back from the pavement line  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Detached dwelling.

Detached dwelling.

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

Emails had been received from Mr Pucill (Glenrosa) and Mr & Mrs Nicholls (Cherry Orchard) withdrawing their objection to the application. Mr & Mrs Nicholls commented that their only remaining concern was the potential impact of the boundary hedge on the light reaching the kitchen window.

A further letter had been received from G.J Wilden stating disagreement to any building before the boundary matter was settled.

Much Birch Parish Council was re-consulted as were the above residents with regard to the revised plans received. The Parish Council maintained their original objections to the scheme.

The Principal Planning Officer commented that it was not clear what the nature of the boundary matter raised by G J Wilden was. This could be a civil matter but a condition regarding boundary treatments would provide further control if necessary. He added that the issues raised by the Parish Council were addressed in the main report.

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

Councillor RH Smith, the Local Ward Member, felt that the site was well screened from the neighbouring residents and that it was in need of development. He added that the boundary treatment concerns could be addressed through suitable conditions and therefore he supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          B03 (Amended plans)

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the amended plans and to comply with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2          C01 (Samples of external materials)

Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings so as to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3          F16 (No new windows in specified elevation) (north)

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4          F17 (Obscure glazing to windows) (north)

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of adjacent properties and to comply with Policy H18 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5          G04 (Protection of trees/hedgerows that are to be retained)

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the development conforms with Policies DR1 and LA5 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

6          G09 (Details of Boundary Treatments)

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to ensure the development has an acceptable standard of privacy and to confirm to Policy DR1 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7          G12 (Hedgerow planting)

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

8          H12 (Parking and turning - single house)

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, 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.

9          H13 (Access,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.