To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors RBA Burke, ME Cooper, P Morgan and RJ Phillips. 

The following declarations of interest were made:

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2008.

RESOLVED:   That the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th January, 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 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. 

Change of use of agricultural field to camp site and erection of single storey equipment store/shower and toilet facilities.

Ward: Castle

Change of use of agricultural field to camp site and erection of single storey equipment store/shower and toilet facilities. 

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 development hereby approved shall be used in relationship to overnight camping only and no caravan shall be allowed on site.

         Reason:  In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and in the interests of public highway safety.

3 -     Prior to any development on site the applicants will submit to the Local Planning Authority details of a flood evacuation plan for the campsite in the event of a flood warning being issued that would include the stretch of the River Wye within close proximity to the application site.

         Reason: In order to protect users of the campsite, in the event of a flood warning being issued for the river within close proximity to the application site.

INFORMATIVES:

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

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt

Erection of one bungalow for agricultural workers dwelling.

Ward: Bringsty

Site for the erection of one bungalow for agricultural workers dwelling. 

The following updates were reported:

·         Two letters of support had been submitted from CDM Scales, Blake House, Eastham, Tenbury Wells, and Michael Edwards and Sue Hirst, Lower Lincetter, Badley Wood Common. 

The former was one of the applicant’s customers, commenting that the applicant always supplies high quality produce and is extremely reliable.

The latter were near neighbours who welcomed the fact that the land is being brought back into economic use, and they supported the proposal.  They also noted that at the time of the hearing, it was determined that hydroponic production necessitated on-site 24 hour staffing. 

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

The Local Ward Member, Councillor TW Hunt, said that it had been helpful to defer the application in order to obtain more information about the business.  He queried whether all the necessary information had been submitted.  He drew comparisons with this application, and a similar one at Lower Eggleton, which had been refused and was now the subject of an appeal.  He felt that the application would allow a dwelling to be built in open countryside, and that the reasons for refusal stated at a previous meeting were still valid, in spite of the receipt of further information. 

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the planning application at Lower Eggleton, referred to by Councillor TW Hunt, had differed from this application in that there had been insufficient evidence to demonstrate the financial viability of the business at Lower Eggleton, whereas in respect of this application, the applicant had submitted detailed audited accounts. 

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was currently one polytunnel on the site, and that any further polytunnels would be the subject of a separate planning permission. 

In response to further questions, the Head of Planning Services said that although a dwelling would not normally be permissible in the proposed location, in this case it did accord with Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 because the application had satisfied the function and financial tests.  He also stated that it might be too restricting to amend the proposed Condition 5 so that it referred expressly to the applicant’s hydroponic business, because this condition (E28) was generally intended to offer a degree of flexibility. 

Having considered all the information surrounding the application, members agreed that planning permission should be granted because the application had satisfied the requirements of PPS7. 

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

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 permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 -     A04 (Approval of reserved matters)

         Reason: To enable the local planning authority to exercise proper control  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Proposed site for 10 dwellings.

Ward: Leominster South

Proposed site for 10 dwellings. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor RC Hunt, felt that Laundry Lane posed a traffic hazard because of the high number of vehicles which parked along it as far as the junction.  He said that this practice significantly reduced visibility, and he requested the imposition of a Traffic Regulation Order on the area, which would improve safety on the proposed application site.  In addition, he asked that some of the funds secured through the Section 106 agreement, be used to bring Laundry Lane up to adoptable standard. 

The Southern Team Leader said that it was unlikely that Laundry Lane could be constructed to an adoptable standard, due to its narrowness, and it was therefore inappropriate to set aside any funding specifically for this purpose.  In addition, the Area Engineer (Development Control) said that a Traffic Regulation Order would not be advisable in this area due to the existing long-established precedent of traffic. 

Councillor JP French requested that a sum of £1,500 per dwelling (referred to on Page 42 of the agenda) be included in the Section 106 agreement in order to create highway improvements.  The Head of Planning Services confirmed that this would be possible, and would be used for measures to improve visibility. 

RESOLVED:

(i)         That the Legal Practice Manager 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 appended to this report and any additional or amended matters which he considers to be necessary or appropriate, including a contribution of £1,500 per dwelling for highway improvements;

(ii)        Upon completion of the above-mentioned planning obligation agreement, the Officer 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 -     E16 (Removal of permitted development rights)

         Reason:  In order that the local planning authority can consider the implications of any future development.

4 -     E18 (No new windows in specified elevation)

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

5 -     F16 (Restriction of hours during construction)

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

6 -     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.

7 -     G01 (Details of boundary treatments)

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

8 -     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 -      H13 (Access, turning area and parking)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Proposed two storey extension.

Ward: Mortimer

Proposed two storey extension. 

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 -     The 'open store area' as indicated on the east elevation of the approved plans shall remain open as indicated on the approved plans in perpetuity.

         Reason: In the interests of the character and scale of the dwelling.

Informatives:

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

2 -     N19 - Avoidance of doubt

Residential development for fifteen houses and garages.

Ward: Mortimer

Site for residential development for fifteen houses and garages. 

The following updates were reported:

·         A correction to the report was required.  Leintwardine Parish Council comments should have read:

“No objection to the development of this land but the Parish Council make the following comments:

1.                  The access to the site appears unsafe due to poor lines of sight

2.                  The ownership and maintenance of the open space land is considered important without some stipulation it is likely to become neglected and something of an eyesore

3.                  There is doubt over the number of houses proposed which exceed the number though necessary by the recent Housing Needs Survey

4.                  The Parish Council would not be happy to see extra street lighting installed as a result of this development but if it is it should be of a good quality specification.”

·         Four further letters had been received, in response to the amended plans which removed the cycle path / footpath that led from the site to the west onto the A4113.  The letters expressed appreciation for the removal of this, but asked that the other issues be considered, namely:

o       Density of development

o       Close proximity of the development to the existing properties

o       Building line of the dwellings being forward of the building line of the thresh bungalows (69, 71 and 73) which may impair visibility

o       The building line should be brought back in line with the building line of the bungalows

·         In respect of the Protected Open Space that has been allocated as informal playing space. Herefordshire Council is willing to adopt the space but requested a Maintenance contribution.  These figures have now been received in addition to a detailed plan showing the additional planting and hedgerows.  An additional clause should be added to the Draft Heads of Terms as follows:

o       The developer covenants with Herefordshire Council to pay Herefordshire Council the sum of £10,085.73 to provide for the cost of improving and maintaining the on-site open space which sum shall be paid on or before the commencement of the development.

·         In respect of Archaeology, reports had been requested and some trial pits undertaken.  The Archaeologist commissioned by the applicant had spoken directly to the Council’s Archaeologist and it is noted that whilst there are some findings, these are unlikely to be significant.  Reports will be submitted shortly, and subject to these being satisfactory, the Councils Conservation Manager (Archaeologist) would recommend a condition (D01) be added to any permission granted. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms Cutler spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Skelton spoke in support. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor LO Barnett, expressed concern about highway safety in the area, and asked for further inspections to be undertaken.  She also felt that some of the proposed buildings might be encroaching too far onto the highway, and might affect visibility.  In response, the Southern Team Leader said that he would request further investigations to be carried out by highways officers to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Proposed erection of 27 dwellings.

Ward: Leominster South

Proposed erection of 27 dwellings. 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates:

• The last word of Paragraph 5.1 of the report, should read “access” and not “dwelling”;
• Proposed Condition 15 was no longer necessary and would be deleted;
• In the Draft Heads of Terms, the title should be changed to reflect the application (because it contained the address details of a different application site).  The Southern Team Leader confirmed, however, that the remainder of the document did relate to the correct application and so no further reviews were required. 

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

The Local Ward Member, Councillor RC Hunt, expressed concern that there was no play area proposed with the development.  He requested that some of the funds secured through the Section 106 agreement be used to improve the nearby cemetery. 

The Principal Planning Officer said that the application site was near to a larger development which provided additional areas of open space, meaning that it would not be devoid of leisure areas. 

In response to a further question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had proposed a mix of building materials on the site to add variety, and there would be some rendered elements.  He also reported that the developer had been unable to propose any additional access off Southern Avenue, because the land required for this was in the ownership of another body. 

RESOLVED:

(i)                 That the Legal Practice Manager 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 appended to this report and any additional or amended matters which he considers to be necessary or appropriate;

(ii)               Upon completion of the above-mentioned planning obligation agreement Officer 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 -     F16 (Restriction of hours during construction )

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

4 -     F40 (No burning of material/substances )

         Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and prevent pollution.

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 -     G02 (Landscaping scheme (housing development) )

         Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and well-planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment.

7 -     G03 (Landscaping scheme (housing development) - implementation )

         Reason: To ensure a satisfactory and well-planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment.

8 -     The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Proposed new house and detached garage.

Ward: Upton

Proposed new house and detached garage. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor J. Stone, thanked officers for their work on the application, and in particular, their efforts to resolve issues of highway safety.  He said, however, that he still felt that Wyson Lane was dangerous, and for this reason, he had reservations about the application.  He commented that Wyson Lane was narrow, was extremely busy at certain times, and that the application site was close to a junction.  He considered that use of the lane had increased over time, by cyclists, walkers and horse riders in addition to vehicles.  In addition, he felt that the Housing Needs Survey (Policy DR3 of the Unitary Development Plan) did not support dwellings in this area, and that the proposed size of the dwelling was unjustifiably large, and would adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents.  He also expressed concern over potential flooding, which had affected the area during the summer of 2007, and in 2005. 

Other members expressed reservations about building dwellings in garden areas, and felt that it was not possible to rely on current information about flood plains, due to the fact that the Environment Agency was in the process of updating its information. 

The Southern Team Leader reported that the site was within the settlement boundary, and there was no overlooking from the proposed property to other neighbouring residences.  He said that planning policy did not prevent the applicant from erecting a dwelling in the garden area.  The Head of Planning Services reminded members that they had no alternative other than to rely on the evidence submitted by the Environment Agency in relation to flooding, and that there were only a few circumstances under which an applicant was obliged to provide evidence of housing need.  He said that, if members considered that the highway issues had been addressed following the previous application, there were no grounds for refusing this 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 -   B01 (Samples of external materials )

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

3 -   H03 (Visibility splays )

        Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4 -   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.

5 -   The whole of the splayed entrance shall have a sealed surface and shall remain unobstructed at all times.

        Reason:  In the interests of highway safety.

6 -   G04 (Landscaping scheme (general) )

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

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

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

Informatives:

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

2 - N03 - Adjoining property rights

3 -   The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

"Whole farm application" for the erection (and re-erection) of polytunnels.

Ward: Hope End

"Whole Farm Application" for the erection (and re-erection) of polytunnels. 

The following updates were reported:

·         Further representations had been received in respect of the provision of passing bays along Burtons Lane.  Whilst it was considered that there may only be scope for the provision of one passing bay, it was considered that the matter could be explored further. 

In response to this representation, the following officer comment was reported:

·         An amendment to the proposed condition 13 is recommended as follows:

13.   Within three months from the date of this planning permission a scheme for the provision of motor vehicle passing bay(s) along Burtons Lane between its junction with the B4214 and the main vehicular entrance to Withers Farm shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval. Such a scheme must be agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within four months from the date of this permission. The approved passing bay(s) shall be implemented by 1^st September 2008 and thereafter maintained as such;

Reason: - To ensure the free flow of traffic along Burtons Lane

·         A further representation had been received from the Herefordshire & Gloucestershire Canal Trust who now objected to the proposed development but stated that their concerns could be satisfactorily overcome by the imposition of three conditions. 

In response to this representation, the following officer comment was reported:

·         Their views have been carefully considered and it is considered that recommended condition 5 together with an additional condition would suffice.  The additional condition is proposed as follows:

23.   Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 14 above, there shall be no outlet headwalls constructed, engineering or other operations (including excavation / deepening to increase storage capacity) within the safeguarded route of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority being obtained;

Reason: - To ensure that any excavation or other works that represent development do not prejudice the future restoration of the canal in accordance with policy RST9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Leeds and Mr Saunders spoke in support of the application. 

A Local Ward Member, Councillor R Mills, thanked the Principal Planning Officer for his excellent report, and for the clarity of information and plans provided. 

The other Local Ward Member, Councillor RV Stockton, acknowledged that the officer’s report was exemplary and would be used as a template for similar applications, both locally and nationally. 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that:

• the applicant had considered using matt or colour-tinted plastic for the polytunnels, but that there was evidence that these measures might lead to an inferior crop yield, and so it was unreasonable to control the types of plastic with a planning condition.  He added that one of the main complaints about polytunnels was the glare generated by direct sunlight reflecting off their surfaces, and that the colour of plastic had no impact on this.  To limit the effect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Removal of condition 6 of planning permission NE2003/1293/f to allow clear glass to be used for 2 windows.

Ward: Ledbury

Removal of condition 6 of planning permission NE2003/1293/f to allow clear glass to be used for 2 windows. 

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

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted.

12th March, 2008

9th April, 2008

7th May, 2008

12^th March, 2008; 9^th April, 2008; and 7^th May, 2008.