To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors LO Barnett, WLS Bowen, ME Cooper,
Brig P Jones , RJ Phillips and K Swinburne.

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

Councillor RBA Burke declared a personal interest Agenda item 9, Minute 139 (DCNC2007/3520/F - erection of offices and dwellings with associated demolitions and site works 40/42 West Street, Leominster)

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

RESOLVED:            That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th November, 2007 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of “Councillor RV Stockton declared a prejudicial interest Agenda item 5, Minute 123 (Tree Preservation Order No 536, Colwall Cricket Ground) and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

To note the contents of the attached report of the Head of Planning Services in respect of appeals for the northern area of Herefordshire.

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

To consider and take any appropriate action in respect of the planning applications received for the northern area of Herefordshire, and to authorise the Head of Planning Services to impose any additional and varied conditions and reasons considered to be necessary.

 

Plans relating to planning applications on this agenda will be available for inspection in the Council Chamber 30 minutes before the start of the meeting.

The Sub-Committee considered the following planning applications received for the Northern Area of Herefordshire and authorised the Head of Planning Services to impose any additional or varied conditions and reasons which he considered to be necessary.

For:      Ms H Kent per Mr P H Tufnell, Tufnell Town & Country Planning, Waverley Studio, Gloucester Road, Hartpury, Gloucester. GL19 3BG

 

Ward: Hope End

The Senior Planning Officer said that the appeal referred to in his report regarding application NE05/3784/RM had recently been dismissed and he provided the Sub-Committee with the following updates about the drainage issues relating to the application:

 

 

One further consultee response to add following the further amended plans and drainage details. Mr Brian Lee, the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer makes the following comments, detailed in full, from memorandum dated 4^th January 2008:

 

‘As with any site proposing a rainwater utilisation system, the main concern is whether the designed storage will be capable of containing the product of successive storms, particularly when usage is low or the property is unoccupied for long periods.

 

Information is required comparing rainfall figures and designed storage with the domestic greywater usage, and what factors of safety are included in the design. Also what controls will be put in place to ensure that any overspill is contained without affecting neighbouring properties.

 

There are no other concerns’.

 

The Senior Planning Officer said that the view of the Officers was that the proposed rainwater utilisation system has been designed at overcapacity. In addition, there were two x 2000litre storage tanks connected as an ‘overflow’ from the system designated tank, giving a capacity of 2000 litres for a single storm event. This in connection with the other drainage proposals had satisfied the concerns of the Council’s Building Control Surveyor, who had engaged in significant discussions to help rectify the surface water and drainage issues.  In light of the comments of the Council’s Drainage Engineer, and to ensure that there were no doubts about the suitability of the surface water and drainage proposals, he proposed alterations to condition no.6 which were agreed by the Sub-Committee.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Blundell, an objector, spoke against the application and Mr Tufnell the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 

 

Councillor R Mills, the Local Ward Member said that a considerable amount of time had been spent by the Officers and the applicant to arrive at a scheme which would be acceptable on the site and he felt that the proposals were acceptable.

 

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 -     Prior to the commencement of the hereby permitted development full written details and plans detailing the landscaping, boundary treatments and planting scheme, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

 

         Reason:  To ensure the integration of the development within the landscape and locality, in accordance with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2007) policies DR1 and H13.

 

3 -     All planting, seeding and turfing in the approved details of landscaping, boundary treatment, and planting schedule, as approved in respect of Condition 2, shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

For:      B.J. Layton & Co, John Lambe Associates, Bryn Cynan Fawr, Pontllyfni, Caernarfon, Gwynedd LL54 5EE

 

Ward: Pembridge & Lyonshall with Titley

The Principal Planning Officer reported the receipt of the following:

 

A letter from the agents was received on the 15^th January 2008 noting various points relating to the report. A copy of this letter and enclosures has been sent to each of the NAPSC members.

 

Further to the letter from Animal Funeral Services, officers have consulted verbally with Environmental Health. On this basis, it is considered that as long as the applicant operates within the legislation and licences that it is currently bound by then the siting of lodges in this location should not affect the incineration / waste transfer business. Separate regulatory bodies and legislation that would react to any breach of this cover this operation. 

 

Councillor RJ Phillips, the Local Ward Member was of the view that the applicant had made a considerable effort to overcome the objections to a previous proposal for twelve lodges and that the revised application for six had led to none being received.  The site was in a secluded location and he felt that it would not have an adverse affect on the landscape; it would help with farm diversification; and it would assist with tourism in the area.  He did not agree that any of the lodges should be used for residential purposes but felt that holiday lets would be acceptable as long as there were appropriate conditions carefully control occupancy.  He also considered that there would need to be conditions imposed by the Officers about design, landscaping, drainage and vehicular access.  The Sub-Committee was agreeable to this approach subject to all six of the units being accessible by the disabled.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That   (i) The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject the following conditions and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Local Ward Member, provided that he does not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services.

 

1.      the lodges to be for holiday lets only with any appropriate conditions to limit occupancy and times of opening as determined by the officers. 

 

2.      design, landscaping, drainage and vehicular access 

 

3.      all six of the units to be accessible by the disabled.

 

(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 approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above.

 

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would refer the application to the Head of Planning Services]

For:      Taylor Wimpey & Jennings Estates Ltd per  Drivers Jonas, Cornwall Court, 19 Cornwall Street, Birmingham,  B3 2DY

 

Ward: Pembridge & Lyonshall with Titley

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Sub-Committee with the following updates which had been received:-

 

The Council’s Transportation Manager recommended a condition with regards to Travel Plans, (condition number 14), to be attached to any subsequent approval notice issued. On reflection condition number 14 is considered unnecessary and therefore it is recommended that this condition is deleted from the list of recommended conditions.

 

Section 2 of the Draft Heads of Terms should read as follows:

 

‘The developer or successor in title covenants with Herefordshire Council, to pay Herefordshire Council the sum of £56,000, which sum shall be paid on or before the commencement of development. The monies shall be used by Herefordshire Council towards management and maintenance of the play area’.

 

Therefore deletion of the wording :

 

‘In lieu of the provision of open space on the land to serve the development to pay.

 

Amended plans are awaited from the applicants, (who have agreed to the amendment in writing), with regards to re-positioning of the garage on plot 17, alongside the southern elevation of the application site, and revision to first floor windows on the eastern gable elevation, to indicate one opaque glazed non-opening window instead of two separate windows.

 

The applicants have also in a letter dated 9^th January 2008 confirmed that they are prepared to offer the provision of a cycle/pedestrian route in the direction of The Grove, on land outside the application site, as referred to in Section 8 of the attached Heads of Terms. They have also in principle agreed to the payment of £56,000 towards maintenance and management of the on site play area and the obligation with regards to the over head  power lines across the site. These latter three issues forming the basis of the refusal notice issued in respect of the previous application for development on site.

 

The Sub-Committee welcomed the proposals and felt that local people should be given priority in respect of the ‘affordable’ element of the development.  The Sub-Committee agreed to the alterations suggested by the Principle Planning Officer.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms set out in the report of the Head of Planning Services and any additional or amended matters which he considers to be necessary and appropriate.

 

Upon completion of the above-mentioned planning obligation agreement, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation be authorised to issue planning permission 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 -        C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards )

 

                 Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this building of [special] architectural or historical interest.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

For:      Mr M.A. Thomas  per Cleobury Land Use Consultancy, 8 Talbot Square, Cleobury Mortimer, Kiddiminster, DY14 8BQ

 

Ward: Leominster South

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject to:

 

1.      The Head of Planning Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to (set out heads of agreement) and any additional matters and terms as he considers appropriate.

 

2.      Upon completion of the afore mentioned planning obligation that the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

 

3 -     A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission))

 

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

4 -     B01 (Samples of external materials)

 

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

 

5 -     F16 (Restriction of hours during construction )

 

          Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

6 -     No materials or substances shall be incinerated within the application site during the construction phase.

 

         Reason:  To protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

 

7 -     Prior to the construction of any re-development on site details will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing of additional noise insulation to the bedrooms of units 1, 2 and 3.

 

         Reason:  In order to protect the amenity of residents of these dwellings within close proximity to a licensed premises/pool hall.

 

8 -     Prior to development on site details will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing of the office front design and the glazed units as indicated on the approved plans.

 

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding Conservation Area.

 

9 -     Prior to development on site details will be submitted and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority of treatment of the boundary walls and fencing.

 

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

10 -      No meter boxes will be sited on public facing elevations.

 

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding Conservation Area.

 

11 -      C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards)

        

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

12 -      C05 (Details of external joinery finishes)

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

13 -      C10 (Details of rooflights)

 

         Reason: To ensure the rooflights do not break the plane of the roof slope in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

14 -  C11 (Specification of guttering and downpipes)

 

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

15 -      H21 (Wheel washing)

 

         Reason: To ensure that the wheels of vehicles are cleaned before leaving the site in the interests of highway safety.

 

16 -      H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision)

 

         Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure covered cycle accommodation within the application site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

For:      Mrs M Ford per Mr N La Barre,  Easters Court, Leominster, Herefordshire,  HR6 0DE

 

Ward: Leominster South

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Councillor Thomas of Leominster Town Council spoke against the application. 

 

Councillor RC Hunt, a Local Ward Member shared the concerns which had been raised by Leominster Town Council and local residents regarding highway safety at the junction of Laundry Lane and Hereford Road.  There was local residential parking along the latter which was likely to cause visibility problems for motorists exiting Laundry Lane.  Also the lane was extremely narrow and he was of the view that the scheme would add to traffic congestion along it.  There was also the problem that two-storey dwellings were not in keeping with the area and the drop in levels would lead them to tower over the existing bungalows causing loss of privacy and amenity.  Councillor RBA Burke the other Local Ward Member also had reservations about the traffic flow and highway safety issues.  Councillor JK Swinburne had some concerns about the proposed housing density and felt that the financial contribution £1,500 seemed low.  The Northern Team Leader said that the density was approx 50 dwellings per hectare and the Principal Planning Officer advised that the financial contribution would be towards open space and sports recreational provision.

 

In view of the concerns which had been raised about the proposals, the Sub-Committee decided to defer consideration of the application and asked the officers to discuss those concerns with the applicants.

 

RESOLVED

 

That consideration of the application be deferred for the Officers to discuss the concerns which had been raised with the applicants.

For:      Mr J T W Lyon, 22 Old Forge, Whitbourne, Worcestershire, WR6 5SB     

 

Ward: Bromyard

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 -     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.

 

           Informatives:

 

1 -     N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

 

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt

For:      Mr & Mrs Wilkinson per RRA Architects, Packers House, 25 West Street, Hereford,  HR4 OBX

 

Ward: Bringsty

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Sub-Committee with the following updates which had been received:-

 

Wacton Parish Council:

General support but a concern was raised with regard to the size of the extension in relation to the original building.

 

Officer Comments: The issue of the size of the extension and its comparison to the approved scheme is dealt with in the body of the report and the two are comparable.

 

Councillor TW Hunt the Local Ward Member welcomed the proposals and said that the applicant had developed a prestigious site of considerable local interest.  He suggested that a further condition be added to prevent the previous applications from being implemented.  Councillor RV Stockton asked that a further condition be added for the vintage postbox to be relocated and preserved so that it was not lost from the area and the Sub-Committee was agreeable to both requests.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject to planning permission NC06/0428/2006/F - Erection of a single storey extension approved on 10th April 2006 being not implemented, the post box on the site being moved and retained in a different location, and 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 -     C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards )

 

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

 

4 -     C05 (Details of external joinery finishes )

 

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

 

5 -     C10 (Details of rooflights )

 

         Reason: To ensure the rooflights do not break the plane of the roof slope in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of this building of  architectural and historical interest.

 

6 -     C11 (Specification of guttering and downpipes )

 

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

 

           Informatives:

 

1 -     N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC

 

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt

For:      Mr Praill   Baart Harries Newall, 1 Wilderhope House, Pountney Gardens, Belle Vue, Shrewsbury SY3 7LG

 

Ward: Leominster South

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Devoy, a partner of the applicants, spoke in favour of the application. 

 

Councillor RC Hunt, a Local Ward Member was of the view that because of its unique nature and the service, employment and training which would be provided, an exception could be made to the Council’s Planning Policies and permission granted.  Councillor RBA Burke the other Local Ward Member concurred with this view and felt that it fulfilled the criteria of the business park by providing employment opportunities. The Principal Planning Officer agreed that employment would be provided but pointed out that the business park was for B1, B2 and B8 use and that it did not fall into any of these classes.  The Officers therefore felt that the proposal would not only result in the loss of employment land on the site, but would be a threat to the industrial and commercial nature of the site through the introduction of non B-class uses and as a result would not benefit the employment situation within Leominster. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted the points made by the Officers. Councillor TM James felt that the nature of employment providers had changed since the business park was built and the type of firms originally envisaged to go there had not yet materialised.  He therefore felt that the site was ideal for expanding local businesses such as this one and supported the proposal.  Councillor Mrs J French pointed out that relocation would enable the business to expand from a restricted town centre location, be more accessible for the public and also provide some thirty jobs, a veterinary hospital and a training centre for veterinary nurses.  Taking these factors into consideration, the Sub-Committee felt that there were sufficient material planning considerations to enable an exception to be made to the policies.  It was however felt that the application was fairly unique and that a precedent should not be set for any other non B-class uses on the enterprise park.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That       (i)      The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application subject to any appropriate conditions felt to be necessary by the Development Control Manager provided that he does not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services.

 

(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 approve the application, subject to such conditions referred to above.

 

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the application to the Head of Planning Services]

For:      Mr B. Lord,  T J Preece & Associates, 4 Lion Street, Kidderminster, Worcs  DY10 1PT

 

Ward: Bringsty

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Sub-Committee with the following updates which had been received:-

 

E-mail received from neighbour Mrs Allen who has previously objected. She has noted the planning officers recommendation and has stated again her and her husbands objections relating to loss of privacy and also the problems of surface water on the road due to lack of drainage in area which during freezing conditions is a hazard to highway safety.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Lord spoke in favour of his 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 -     The new rooflights should be of "conservation type" i.e. flush with the roof slopes and have slender framed metal lights with a glazing bar unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason:  In the interests of conserving the visual appearance and character of the building.

 

3 -     The stained glass windows shall be retained, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

         Reason:  In the interests of conserving the visual appearance and character of the building.

 

4 -     E16 (Removal of permitted development rights )

 

         Reason: To ensure that the character and appearance of the original conversion

         scheme is maintained.

 

5 -     E18 (No new windows in specified elevation )

 

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

 

6 -     The recommendations set out in the ecological report by Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd, dated October 2007, shall be followed in full, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  Prior to development, a full working method statement, to include bat roost enhancement measures, shall be submitted to the local planning authority for prior written approval and implemented as approved.  An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological  Clerk of Works shall be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

 

         Reason:  To ensure all species of bat and their roosts are protected and to conserve/enhance potential habitat and maintain the foraging area for protected species, in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Conservation (Natural Habitats and Conservation) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

 

7 -     G01 (Details of boundary treatments )

 

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

 

8 -     H01 (Single access - not footway )

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

9 -     H04 (Visibility over frontage )

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

10 -H05 (Access gates )

 

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

11 -      H13 (Access, turning area and parking )

 

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

 

12 -      Before the new dwelling is first brought into use, details of the top surface of the new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

For:      Mr K Lambourne,   JBD Architects,  Mortimer House,  Holmer Road,  Hereford  HR4 9TA

 

Ward: Leominster South

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Comfort, an objector, spoke against the application and Mr Pearce, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 

 

Councillor RC Hunt, a local Ward Member felt that the application was for an innovative scheme but he shared the concerns of the objector that the pond area should have safeguards to prevent it being a danger to children.  The Sub-Committee felt that this could be dealt with by appropriate conditions.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject appropriate conditions regarding the pond to be determined in consultation with the Local Ward Members and the Chairman, and 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 -   E16 (Removal of permitted development rights )

 

         Reason: In order that the local planning authority can assess the impact of any further development on this specifically designed scheme.

 

4 -   F16 (Restriction of hours during construction )

 

        Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

 

5 -   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.

 

6 -   G01 (Details of boundary treatments )

 

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

        satisfactory privacy.

 

7 -   G04 (Landscaping scheme (general) )

 

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

 

9 -   G05 (Implementation of landscaping scheme (general) )

 

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

 

10 -   G13 (Landscape design proposals )

 

        Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

 

11 -   G18 (Protection of trees )

 

        Reason: To ensure adequate protection to existing trees which are to be retained,

        in the interests of the character and amenities of the area.

 

12 -   G19 (Existing trees which are to be retained )

 

        Reason: In order to preserve the character and amenity of the area.

 

13 -   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.

 

14 - W01 (Foul/surface water drainage )

 

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

 

15 - 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.

 

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

 

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

        pollution of the environment.

 

 

Informative(s):

 

1 - HN07 - Section 278 Agreement

2 - HN10 - No drainage to discharge to highway

3 - HN22 - Works adjoining highway

4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

13th February, 2008

 

12th March, 2008

 

9th April, 2008

 

7th May, 2008

13th February, 2008

 

12th March, 2008

 

9th April, 2008

 

7th May, 2008