To note that, at the Annual Council meeting on 16 May 2008 Councillor JW Hope MBE was re-elected Chairman and Councillor PJ Watts was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee noted that, at the Annual Council Meeting held on 16 May 2008, Councillor JW Hope MBE had been re-elected Chairman, and Councillor PJ Watts had been appointed Vice-Chairman of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee, for the ensuing municipal year. 

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors RBA Burke, JP French, JHR Goodwin and RJ Phillips. 

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.

The following declaration of interest was made:

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2008.

RESOLVED:   that the minutes of the meeting held on 07 May 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.  

Proposed erection of one house.

Erection of one house.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms E. Newman spoke on behalf of Kington Town Council, and Mr Burton, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor TM James, said that he was opposed to the principle of the development, because it was in his view “backland” development.  He acknowledged, however, that there were no planning grounds on which to refuse the application.  He added that it was crucial to maintain the historic walls of Kington, and asked that Condition 15 in the report, which would ensure reinstatement of the historic boundary wall on the application site, be enhanced so that the wall would be completely reinstated prior to first occupation of the dwelling.  

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

1.      A01 - Time limit for commencement (full permission)

         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

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.      DO4 - Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy DR2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4.      DO5 - Details of external joinery finishes

         Reason: To ensure that the work is finished with materials, textures and colours that are appropriate to the safeguarding of the architectural and  historic interest of the building (as one which is in a conservation area), and to comply with the requirements of Policy HBA12 and HBA13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

5.          D10 - Specification of guttering and downpipes

         Reason: To ensure that the rainwater goods are of an appropriate form in the interests of the building (as one which is in a conservation area, or of local interest) and to comply with the requirements of Policy HBA12 and HBA13 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

6.      E01 - Site investigation – archaeology

         Reason: To ensure the archaeological interest of the site is recorded and to comply with the requirements of Policy ARCH6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

7.      F14 - Removal of permitted development rights

         Reason  - For new houses - 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.

8.      F01 -  Restriction on hours of working

         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy DR2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

9.      L01 - Foul/surface water drainage

         Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and to comply with Policy CF2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

10.    L02 -  No surface water to connect to public system

         Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposed residential development of 46 dwellings, garages, associated roads, sewers and works.

Residential development of 46 dwellings, garages, associated roads, sewers and works.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following updates to the report:

• Welsh Water had responded to the application with no objections.

·         CPRE had responded to the application with concerns about the amount of proposed car parking provision within the site, which it felt should be reduced if the Council is serious about reducing car use.  Also concerns had been raised about the insufficiently sustainable design.

The Senior Planning Officer gave the following response to the updates:

• The car parking and internal road layout and access to the site are in accordance with the Council’s Transportation Manager’s requests and therefore no objections are raised with regards to this issue.

• The issues with regards to sustainable design are covered by building regulations, to which objections raised are not considered valid enough in the event of an appeal in respect of this application.

The Senior Planning Officer said that he had made no change to the recommendation contained in the report, as a result of the updates. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms E. Newman spoke on behalf of Kington Town Council. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor TM James, although accepting that the proposed density of dwellings was reasonable, expressed concern about parking on the site.  He said that the proposed play area was positioned incorrectly because it was out of the sight of most inhabitants, and this would make monitoring children’s whereabouts extremely difficult.  He was of the opinion that the design for the proposed dwellings was substandard and unimaginative, and would be detrimental to the surrounding area.  

In response to a question from Councillor LO Barnett, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Welsh Water had thoroughly examined drainage and sewerage issues, and had concluded that they were satisfactory.  

In response to a question from Councillor RV Stockton, the Northern Team Leader reported that the Section 106 agreement in relation to the leisure areas on the site, had been based on a ten-year maintenance figure, following advice from the Council’s Parks and Countryside Section.  

Having carefully considered all aspects of the application, members agreed on balance that it should be approved. 

RESOLVED:   That Reserved Matters be granted subject to the following conditions:

1       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.

2       D04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards )

         Reason:  To ensure the development integrates into the surrounding countryside and to comply with the requirements of Policies DR1 and LA3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3       D05 (Details of external joinery finishes)

Reason:  To ensure the development integrates into the surrounding countryside and to comply with the requirements of Policies DR1 and LA3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4       F01 (Restriction on hours of working)

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Single-storey extension to provide additional bedroom accommodation.

Single storey extension to provide additional bedroom accommodation. 

The Northern Team Leader provided the following amendments to paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 in report:

6.5       The application is an amendment to planning permission DCNC2007/2859/F and seeks a slight increase in size in order to meet minimum standards for bedroom sizes.  The size of the extension permitted under planning permission DCNC2007/2859/F measures 12 metres in length and 8.5 metres in width, with an external doorway extending from the front another 2.2 metres.  The ridge height of the building measures approximately 4.7 metres.  This would leave approximately a 1-metre gap between the rear part of the extension and the neighbouring fence.  To the front of the building, the gap would be 0.65 metres from this fence.

6.6              The proposed building now measures 12.8 metres to the front, and 12.2 metres across the rear, with a width of 8.5 metres.  As before, an external doorway is proposed extending the front elevation to 14.6 metres in length.  Overall, this will reduce the gap between the neighbours fence at the front from 0.65 metres to 0.5 metres.  The gap to the rear will remain as before at 1 metre.

He added that there was no resulting change to the recommendation in the report, in the light of the above amendments. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Chambers spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Lutton, the applicant, spoke in support.

The Local Ward Member, Councillor RC Hunt, commented that previous works on the application site had been ongoing for a considerable length of time, and he asked if it was possible to impose a time limit on the proposed works, in order to minimise the potential disturbance to neighbouring residents.  The Northern Team Leader confirmed that the proposed Condition 13 in the report set out when the development would commence, and that planning policy did not make provision to impose a time limit on the completion of developments. 

RESOLVED:

In respect of DCNC2008/0762/F:

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      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      D05 (Details of external joinery finishes)

        Reason: To ensure that the work is finished with materials, textures and colours that are appropriate to the safeguarding of the special architectural or historical interest of the building and to comply with the requirements of Policy HBA1 [and HBA3] of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

4      E01 (Site investigation - archaeology)

        Reason: To ensure the archaeological interest of the site is recorded and to comply with the requirements of Policy ARCH6 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

5      F06 (Restriction on Use)

        Reason: The local planning authority wish to control the specific use of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Conversion of and alterations to period stables to create three residential dwellings.

Conversion of and alterations to period stables to create three residential dwellings. 

The Principal Planning Officer reported the following updates to the report:

• A further letter had been received from Mrs Whitlock of Half Barrel Cottage which reads as follows:

"I'm sure that you will take note of all of the concerns that I voiced in my letter of objection (28th Feb 08), but just to reiterate that I am greatly disturbed that the plan is to have windows overlooking my property at all, even if fixed and obscured, and that there may be soil vents/extractors etc visible and audible from my house and garden which are not currently detailed on the Planning Application.  Likewise no detail for the positioning of rainwater soakaways. Also of particular concern is the access from a safety point of view and the considerable and misleading inaccuracies of the Access Statement."

In addition I would like to make the following points:

You said when we spoke last week that you would add a note in the restrictions about extractors/ vents etc not to be visible from my side. I don't see that on the web site meeting notes.   Also where does it talk about them only being allowed 1sq m of glazing per unit and the need for windows to be 4m apart?  The attached site map shows my house without my sons' bedroom or the sunroom, both of which will be grossly effected by these windows This impact is not truly represented to your Councillors. It is also incorrectly named Old School House.

Officers' Appraisal 6.7  '....part B of the Building Regs restrict the amount of glazing that can be used on a wall that forms a boundary and as such it is unlikely that the amount of glazing will need to be reduced to comply.'  should this read that it is "likely that the amount of glazing will need to be reduced"

The Principal Planning Officer had provided the following response to the above comments:

• As above. Para 6.7 of the report should read, likely, rather than unlikely.

• It is also suggested that an additional condition be added as follows:

Prior to the commencement of development, details including the siting, size and external finish of any flues or extractors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No further flues or extractors shall be added without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residents and to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with policies DR1 and HBA13 pf the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (2007).

Additional Highway Informative notes are also recommended – HN04, HN05, HN10, HN22, HN28

Members expressed concern about the proposed opaque glazing to the elevation of the property which bordered the neighbouring property because of the detrimental impact it would have on the privacy and amenity afforded to the neighbour, and some members suggested that this elevation should retain a form of boarding instead, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Site for development to form twenty one apartments, access road and parking.

Site for development to form twenty-one apartments, access road and parking. 

The Development Control Manager reported the following updates to the report:

• One further letter of objection had been received from Mr A Pritchard, Little West, Pinsley Road.  The letter raised concerns about parking, the proximity of the site to the railway line and residential amenity.

• A further petition had been submitted in response to the amended plans with 11 signatories.  It reiterated the concerns previously raised.

• Leominster Town Council had commented on the amended plans and had maintained their objections.

The Development Control Manager confirmed that there were no amendments to the recommendation in the report as a result of the updates. 

Mr Tomkins, the applicant’s agent, had registered to speak in accordance with the criteria for public speaking, and was present at the meeting.  He declined to speak, however. 

The Local Ward Member, Councillor RC Hunt, felt that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, and that the application would also have a detrimental impact on highway safety, particularly in the evening, when Pinsley Road experienced an especially high volume of traffic. 

In response to a question from Councillor R Mills, the Development Control Manager confirmed that it would be possible to discuss using some of the funds secured via the Section 106 agreement, to improve road safety in the area.  He drew Members’ attention to the fact that the Transportation Manager had not objected to the proposal.  He also confirmed that the provision for affordable housing would be included in the Section 106 agreement, as per Paragraph 4.7 of the report. 

A vote to approve the application was lost, and Members then voted on a substantive motion to refuse the application, which was carried. 

RESOLVED:

That   (i) The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application for the reasons given below and any further reasons 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.      Overintensification. 

2.      Detrimental impact of the amenity of the surrounding area. 

(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 referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he was minded not to refer the application to the Head of Planning Services, but that he would seek procedural advice before taking this course of action, and may be obliged to refer it to the Head of Planning Services depending on the outcome of that advice]

25 June 2008

02 July 2008.