Apologies were received from Councillors RI Matthews and PJ Watts.

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JF Knipe and P Rone attended the meeting as substitute members for Councillors RI Matthews and PJ Watts.

10. N113545-F - LAND BEHIND 43 DUKE STREET, KINGTON, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR5 3BL.

Ricky Clarke, Personal, The Officer is a friend of the applicant.

11. S120859/CD - ADJACENT TO THE OLD HOUSE, HIGH TOWN, HEREFORD.

Councillor PJ Edwards, Personal, The Member is a Member of the City Council whop had initially proposed the sculpture.

12. S113577/F - ALTON ROAD, ROSS ON WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5ND.

Councillor J Hardwick, Personal, The Member sits on the Wye Valley AONB Board.

12. S113577/F - ALTON ROAD, ROSS ON WYE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR9 5ND.

Councillor PGH Cutter, Prejudicial, The Chairman is Chair of the Wye Valley AONB Board and also has a business contract with the applicant's agent.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2012.

Councillor DW Greenow advised that he had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of item 8 on the agenda as his son worked with the applicant’s agent.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the amendment detailed above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2012 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised Members that the order of the agenda had been amended with agenda item 11 now being the first application to be considered.

The Planning Committee noted that there were no appeals. In response to a question the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that there were appeals awaiting decisions but these had been held up during the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proposed sculpture (Hereford Bull) on stone plinth.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet.

Members discussed the application and were broadly in support of it. There were however concerns that seats and trees would be removed as part of the application with some Members requesting that the trees removed should be replanted in High Town and not elsewhere [amended at Planning Committee 27 June 2012]. Members also discussed the possibility that people may sit on the plinth, some members were of the opinion that this was regrettable whereas others did not feel it would be a problem.

Some further concern was expressed in respect of the proposed location of the sculpture. An alternative location was suggested where it was considered that the sculpture may have more of a visible impact.

In response to points raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the location of the sculpture would not impact on accessibility to high town for emergency vehicles. He added that the concerns regarding the loss of seating would be conveyed to the applicants but felt that a condition requiring their relocation would not be appropriate. It was therefore agreed that the matter be conveyed via an informative note. In response to a further point it was agreed that the possible relocating of the trees be included as an informative note also.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. 551600/C/001 – Site Clearance and Earthworks; 551500/C/002 – Plinth Detail; 551600/C/003 – Bull installation and Proposed Lighting; 551600/C/004 – Location Plan and General Arrangement)

3.         E03 Site observation - archaeology

Reason for Approval:

1.         The proposal was considered having regard to the statutory provisions of The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies HBA4, HBA6, LA5 and ARCH7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Having due regard to the above, the Council concludes that the development would not adversely affect the setting of the adjoining Grade I Listed Building and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policies HBA4 and HBA6 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.  The imposition of a site observation considered is considered to address the potential archaeological interest of the site as one within the area of Archaeological Interest would secure compliance with Policy ARCH7.

Informative:

1.         The developer is asked to note the minimum of 5 days’ written notice of the commencement of any development that should be served on the County Archaeology Service as per the requirements of condition The developer is advised to contact Mr Julian Cotton (County Archaeological Advisor) on 01432 383350.

2.         The developer is notified that the seating and trees to be removed should be reused/replanted in a suitable location at the earliest opportunity.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

Change of use of land from agricultural to a one family traveller site with siting of 2 mobile homes and 2 touring caravans, shed and redesigned access.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager (Enforcement) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He also advised that following a discussion with the applicant it had been agreed that the sceptic tank on the site could be relocated to address the concerns raised at the site visit.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Lewis, representing Ocle Pychard Parish Council, and Mr Calvert, speaking on behalf of some of the neighbouring residents, spoke in objection to the application.

Following the statements from the public speakers, the Locum Lawyer (Planning & Regulatory) advised Members that there was no evidence to support the concern expressed by the Parish Council   that the low level of objections to the Application was the result of possible reprisals. Members were therefore advised this comment was not a material planning consideration.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors A Seldon and JG Lester, the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         Members had to decide whether the applicant’s circumstances outweighed the previous refusal of planning permission on the site.

·         Members had witnessed at first hand the access issues on the site at the recent site inspection.

·         The site was not suitable for any residential development.

·         Pleased that the issues regarding the sceptic tank had been resolved.

·         There was no evidence that the functional test in respect of traveler status had been met.

·         The allegation regarding local residents fearing reprisals was also contained in the agenda pack, it should not have been in the report if the public speakers were not permitted to raise it.

·         The application should therefore be refused on highway grounds, drainage, and also as the functional test had not been met.

Members discussed the application and noted that gypsy and traveller applications were generally sensitive and subject to objections from neighbouring residents. However it was noted that the site was well screened, that neither the Environment Agency or the Landscape Officer objected to the application and finally that the concerns in respect of the sceptic tank had been addressed.

Members went on to discuss the four key elements of the application, which were, in their opinion, flood risk, drainage, foul water drainage, and the access. It was noted that all of these elements had been addressed in the Officer’s report and by Members when they had visited the site.

In response to a number of points raised by the Committee, the Development Manager (Enforcement) advised that the gypsy assessment had been met and that the site was suitable for a gypsy site. He also added that the application was not for a personal permission for the applicants but for a gypsy site in general. He also added that the National Planning Policy Framework set out that alternative sites would be required for business usage.

Councillors A Seldon and JG Lester were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

Construction of farm access road (part retrospective).

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Development Supervisor gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He added that the applicant was happy to reduce the gradient of the access via a condition in order to address the concerns raised at the recent site visit.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Barber, representing Withington Group Parish Council, and Dr Scotcher, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The concerns of the neighbouring residents and the Parish Council should be considered when Members make a decision in respect of the application.

Members discussed the application and noted that the applicant had agreed to reduce the gradient of the proposed track in response to concerns raised. They felt that this would address the issue of headlights shining into the windows of the property opposite the exit of the track. Members also raised the issue of landscaping and felt that an appropriate landscaping condition should be added to the recommendation.

Members noted that if the application had been submitted through the prior approval route, the application would have been granted.

In response to a question in respect of the bridleway, the Development Supervisor confirmed that the proposed track would not form part of the existing bridleway. In response to further questions he also advised that Hop Barn did not form part of the application and was not a material planning consideration. Finally he confirmed that conditions in respect of the gradient and landscaping could be added to the recommendation.

Councillor DW Greenow was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         A condition should be added to restrict the track for agricultural vehicles only.

·         The enforcement action in respect of the site as a whole needed to be communicated to the Parish Council.

In response the points raised by the local ward member, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that it would be difficult to enforce a condition in respect of agricultural use of the track. He also advised Members that the other issues on the site needed to be addressed separately and that the enforcement issues referred to were not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         Within three months of the date of the permission details of a re-profiled gradient and finished surface of the track where it meets the WS2 bridleway shall be submitted in writing for approval to the local planning authority. The approved re-profiled gradient shall be completed within 2 months of approval of the works.

2.         Within three months of the date of this permission a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

Erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (category II type accommodation), communal facilities, landscaping and car parking.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He gave Members details in respect of the contribution for affordable housing offered by the applicant and advised that it was significantly lower than had been suggested by the independent District Valuer.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 6.37 – 6.39 of the report which advised that a verbal update would be provided to the Committee. He therefore advised that the issues of biodiversity and water quality did not warrant an additional reason for refusal.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JD Woodward and SM Michael, the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The application had little support from neighbouring residents or the nearby school.

·         The building, which hadlways been a prominent building in the area, was built in 1914 for then ten surgeon general.

·         The loss of the building would cause substantial harm to the conservation area.

·         The proposed design and layout of the proposed buildings would not enhance or preserve the area.

·         The proposal to include 17 parking spaces for all of the residents was unreasonable and would result in parking issue in the area.

·         The lack of affordable housing on the site was regrettable. The Rose Gardens development in Ledbury Road was highlighted as a good example which had included affordable housing.

·         The density and height of the proposed building was not in keeping with the surrounding area.

·         The application was also contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies DR2 and S7.

·         The neighbouring residents had made it clear that they wished for the house to be retained.

·         The nearby Lord Scudamore school felt that the proposal would have a  detrimental effect on the school.

Members noted the comments of the local ward members and expressed their concern in respect of the proposed 17 parking spaces for the 40 dwellings. Further concern was expressed in respect of the proposed design of the development.

In response to a point raised by the Committee, the Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that their concerns in respect of car parking provision as well as the impact on the nearby school had been noted and could be included within the reasons for refusal.

Councillors JD Woodward and SM Michael were given the opportunity to close the debate. They advised that their earlier comments remained but they had no further points to raise.

RESOLVED

That in respect of DMS/113131/F that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing. The local planning authority is not satisfied that the Affordable Housing and Viability Statement submitted in support of the application is sufficiently detailed and does not demonstrate that a provision of on-site affordable housing would be economically unviable, or that the low level of contribution proposed for an alternative off-site provision is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

Proposed construction of 4 houses and garages.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. He added that it was agreed that the access was not up to required standards but felt that a balance had to be taken between this and the improvements the application would bring to the area.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Widdowson, representing Kington Town Council, and Ms Rolls, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr La Barre, a neighbouring resident the applicant’s agent [amended at Planning Committee 6 June 2012], spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor TM James, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The access did not meet the required criteria.

·         There were a number of small dwellings available on the market in Kington as well as a number of high density developments.

·         The site would accommodate one or two dwellings but four was excessive.

·         The suggestion that local traffic flow was slow through Duke Street was disputed.

·         It was further noted that the access was onto a busy road where a number of pedestrians would be walking at all times of day.

·         Concern was expressed as to whether emergency vehicles would be able to gain access to the dwellings through the narrow access.

·         The access came onto the main route for children going to the town’s primary and secondary schools.

Members discussed the application and had serious concerns in respect of the access. The comments of the transportation manager were noted and concern was expressed in respect of his comments regarding vehicular speeds on Duke Street. Members felt that the site visit had been extremely beneficial in assisting them with the concerns which had been raised in respect of the access.

Members noted the concerns in respect of emergency vehicles accessing the site and agreed that they would not be able to navigate the proposed access.

Members discussed the reasons for refusal with Unitary Development Plan Policies H13, S1, T8 and DR3 being put forward as reasons for refusing the application.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that there were currently two accesses to the site although one was through a historic wall which had been breached, the application included a proposal to restore this wall, however it could be used for access to the site during the construction phase. In response to a further question he advised that the proposed access was 3.1 metres wide.

The Locum Lawyer (Planning & Regulatory) requested clarification in respect of the reasons for refusal. After a brief discussion policies H13 and DR3 emerged as the two key policies in refusing the application. A refusal of the application on these grounds was moved and seconded.

Councillor TM James was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

Erection of 90 bed care home for the elderly.

The application was approved contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor BA Durkin, the Vice-Chairman was in the Chair for the following item as the Chairman had declared a prejudicial interest.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Councillor PGH Cutter, the Chairman acting as Local Ward Member, and Mr Sneddon, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application. Councillor PGH Cutter left the Council Chamber and took no further part in the debate once he had concluded his statement.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor AM Atkinson, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There was a need for a care home in Ross-on-Wye.

·         Some families currently travelled a 24 mile round trip to visit elderly relatives.

·         The Planning Inspector had decided that the location was suitable during the previous appeal for a smaller residential home on the site.

·         The application would provide 94 full time jobs which would be welcomed in the current economic climate.

·         The application was in accordance with Policy E5 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and should therefore be approved.

·         The application appeared to result in a good level of employment on employment land.

·         Ross Town Council were also in support of the application. (a statement from the Town Council in support of the application was relayed to Members.)

·         Landscaping and car parking provision at the site should be reconsidered by the applicant.

Members noted that the application was solely for an increase from 60 to 90 beds on the site as an application for a 60 bed unit had already been permitted by the Planning Inspector after the Committee had previously refused it. The issue of parking on the site was echoed with the Committee being of the opinion that further car parking provision was required.

A resolution to Grant Planning Permission was moved and seconded. The Locum lawyer (Planning and Regulatory) advised the Member who had moved that the application be approved that reasons for approval would be required.  It was confirmed that although the application did not comply with UDP Policies E5 and CF7 of the .This was outweighed by the benefits of the jobs that would be created, the application would not result in a shortfall in Employment land; the site was sustainable and considerable weight was given to the Inspectors Appeal decision on part of the site. In response to a further question from the Locum Lawyer, the Member who had moved the motion to approve the application confirmed that conditions relating to noise, highways, landscaping, compliance with plans and any other conditions deemed necessary by officers would be required as well as a Section 106 agreement addressing the highways works referred to in the report.

Members continued to discuss the application and were generally in support of it although some concern was expressed in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

Change of use of the garden from Use Class A4 Drinking Establishment to Use Class C3 Dwelling Houses. Construction of 2 new dwellings and creation of public pavement.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Cleveland, representing Kingstone Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Braithwaite, the applicant’s representative, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JF Knipe, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         There had been a question at the Site Visit regarding the ownership of the land at the top section of the site, in 2002 it was common land but would soon be in the ownership of Rosemary Cottage.

·         Adequate visibility from the access would be difficult to achieve.

·         Concerned that the viability of the public house could be affected by the reduction in parking provision.

·         Would not like to see the only public house in the village close as a result of the application.

Members expressed concern in respect of the application with particular reference being made to the impact it could have on the viability of the business. It was felt that the amenity of the public house could be affected through the removal of a large portion of the existing car park.

Members also had concerns in respect of the viability of the proposed dwellings due to their close proximity to the existing public house, although it was noted that this was not a material planning consideration.

Another area of concern raised by Members related to the proposed access with reference being made to the poor visibility for vehicles exiting the site to the left.

Members discussed the application and made specific reference to Unitary Development Plan Policies DR2, DR3, CF6 and T8 in their reasons for refusal. In response to comments raised by the Committee, the Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised that the issue regarding the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the public house should be omitted from the reasons for refusing the application, as there were no good planning reasons for refusal on this ground.

Councillor JF Knipe was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and requested that the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The proposal will result in the loss of part of an existing community facility that would undermine the viability of the public house. In addition the proposed means of access will not provide the required level of visibility and would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of policies CF6, DR2, DR3 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Date of next site inspection -  29 May 2012

Date of next meeting -            6 June 2012