Apologies were received from Councillors DW Greenow and Brig. P Jones CBE.

To any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

9. S123545/CD - WATERFIELD ROAD CAR PARK, WATERFIELD ROAD, HEREFORD, HR2 7EL.

Councillor PJ Edwards, Non-Pecuniary, The Councillor set up a Country Park Watch Scheme.

10. S123439/F - NORTHOLME COMMUNITY CENTRE, NORTHOLME ROAD, BELMONT, HEREFORD, HR2 7SP.

Councillor AN Bridges, Disclosable Pecuniary, The Councillor is a trustee and Director of the Northolme Community Centre.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2013.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised Members that there was a planning training session scheduled for 20 March 2013 commencing at 10:30am.

The Committee sought clarification in respect of the appeal at ***, where the appellant had lost the appeal but still been granted costs. The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that the costs had been granted in respect of one ground of refusal, highway visibility. The Inspector had deemed that the highway visibility on the site was acceptable and had therefore awarded costs accordingly.

The Planning Committee noted the report.

Outline application for 35 Unit Housing Scheme with associated access.

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 Wright, representing Kingstone and Thruxton Parish Council, and Mr Barton, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Reed, the applicant’s agent, 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

·         The application had been discussed at length previously by Committee.

·         At the meeting of 30 January the Committee were told that the Core Strategy could not be given due weight however the draft Core Strategy was now out for consultation.

·         The draft Core Strategy stated that Kingstone was expected to grow by 14%.

·         This expansion equated to approximately five houses per year.

·         The application should be refused.

The debate was opened with a number of Members speaking in objection to the application. The first reason for refusal put forward by the Committee was in relation to Policy H10 of the Unitary Development plan, with particular reference made to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6. In respect of Paragraph 1 of Policy H10 it was noted that the last housing needs survey for Kingstone was undertaken in 2008 and was therefore not up to date. The Committee considered that the application was contrary to paragraphs 2 and 3 as the local housing conditions could satisfy the need, and the proposal was not respectful of the character and size of Kingstone. Finally it was noted that the application was for a mixed development and was therefore contrary to paragraph 6.

Members also considered the National Planning Policy Framework in formulating a motion to refuse the application. It was stated that paragraphs 11 and 215 supported the Committee in refusing the application. It was also noted that the NPPF stated that there should be a presumption that brownfield sites be developed ahead of greenfield sites.

Reference was then made to the Core Strategy, particularly RA2 Policy 1, which stated that any development had to respect the size, role and function of each village. The Committee were of the opinion that the proposed application did not meet this requirement.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised Members that as the Core Strategy was a consultation document at this stage it should be given very little weight in planning terms. He advised the Committee to make their decision based on the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members continued to debate the application and noted that the Core Strategy suggested a 14% increase in residential dwellings for Kingstone by 2031, they considered that the proposed application was therefore over development. The local concern regarding the application was also referred to. It was noted that the community consultation had concluded that 84% of the local residents opposed the application.

The Committee also noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Site for B1(C) Light Industrial, B2 General Industry and B8 Storage and Distribution Uses, together with Motor Vehicle Showroom, Ancillary Nursery, Access and Associated Works.

Approval of the application was delegated to Officers subject to further discussions regarding potential highway improvements associated with the site.

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 Pudge, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Green, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

·         The application was generally supported although there were some concerns in respect of the access to the site.

·         The Parish Council had also expressed concern regarding the increase in industrial land outside of that designated within the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The proposed development coupled with the proposed green waste site would result in a significant increase of traffic on the A49.

·         The speed of traffic passing the junction onto the site is a concern.

·         The short turning lane also causes problems for HGV’s turning into the site.

·         The 50mph speed limit should be extended past the entrance of the site.

·         There was also an issue with vehicles turning into Upper Wellington. A slip road at this turning would address the problem.

·         A meeting had been scheduled with the Highways Agency to discuss concerns regarding this stretch of the A49.

·         Improvements should be made to the layout of the junction; a 50mph speed limit put in place; and improvements to the Moreton-on-Lugg bus stop should be made prior to the development being approved.

Members discussed the application and were broadly in support of it, however some concern was expressed regarding the access to the site from the A49. The improvements to the cycle network and a dedicated bus service to the site were welcomed and the biodiversity on the site was referred to.

The Committee thanked the case officer for arranging a site visit, which they considered had been beneficial and assisted in making a decision on the application. Mr Pudge was also thanked for attending and sharing his concerns in respect of the access to the site. Members considered that his concerns should be addressed and therefore proposed that the approval of the application be delegated to officer’s named in the scheme of delegation to officers subject to further discussions with the applicant in respect of the highway issues on the site.

Members also noted that the applicant was investigating the possibility of reopening the rail link to the site. This decision was welcomed and Members noted that this could reduce the number of HGV’s having to access the site by road.

In response to two issues raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer advised that improvement works were planned for the Starting Gate roundabout in early 2014 and that there may be limitations on the highway improvements that could be achieved at the site junction as the Highways Agency were responsible for the A49.

Councillor Guthrie was given the opportunity to close the debate. She reiterated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

Removal of Conditions 5A and 5B of Planning Permission S113513/CD.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager 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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors PJ Edwards and AN Bridges, two of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         A monitoring group of 23 local residents who regularly visit the site had been set up following the previous approval.

·         Since the approval there had not been a need to lock the gate.

·         If problems did develop on site the gate could be locked.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         B04 Amendment to existing permission

2.         The management of the car park and associated land shall be undertaken in accordance with the details of Belmont Haywood Country Park Footway / Cycleway and Car Park Scheme Management Plan dated March 2012 but excluding the requirements of paragraphs 2.1.7 and 2.1.9. The management of the car park shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and to deter crime in order to comply with Policies S1, DR1, DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Approval

1.         The potential impact of the development has been considered in relation to the amenities of local residents and it is considered that the development itself, and use as a car park would not harm the amenities that are enjoyed by local residents. Any anti-social behaviour or disturbance can / should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. The provision of this car park will provide a facility for use by the wider community and help prevent indiscriminate parking on the highway by those visiting the Country Park. It is therefore considered that the removal of Condition 5a and 5b would comply with the requirements of policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Proposed extension and installation of solar panels.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager 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, Mrs White, one of the applicants, spoke in support of the application.

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

·         Mrs White and Councillor Bridges had been a driving force in establishing such a good community facility.

·         The proposals would increase the usage of the community centre as well as reducing operating costs.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

3.         Prior to the commencement of development a detailed gas mitigation scheme, that also has regard to the existing buildings gas mitigation / protection, shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first use of the extensions hereby approved, a verification report on the completion of the agreed works, confirming that the remediation measures have been carried out and setting out measures for maintenance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing.

Reason: To ensure that suitable gas mitigation measures are introduced and protected to comply with the requirements of policy DR10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Approval

1.         The proposed development is, by virtue of its size, scale, design and siting an acceptable and appropriate form of development that would serve the needs of the local community, protect the amenities of local residents and provide sufficient parking and cycling facilities. It therefore complies with the requirements of policies S1, DR1, CF5 and T11 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan. With an appropriately worded condition the requirements of policy DR10 can also be met to ensure that gas mitigation is undertaken.

Proposed single storey extension.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Manager 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 paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PA Andrews, one of the local ward members, addressed the Committee and stated that all three local ward members were happy to support the application.

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

3.         C02 Matching external materials (extension)

Reasons for Approval

1.         The proposed extension is required to provide additional floor space for the existing Hereford Football Association headquarters as such it is regarded as a sports related development. Having regard to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S8 and RST1 and policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. It is considered that the proposal represents an important contribution to the provision of local and community sports facilities.

It is considered that the proposed extension will appear in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area in terms of its siting, scale, mass, height, detailed design and materials. In this respect the proposal will not conflict with the requirements of Hereford Unitary Development Plan Policies S1, S2, DR1 and DR2 together with the sustainability and good design policies and objectives contained in the Introduction and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The existing building is located within the Widemarsh Common Conservation Area, where it is an inconspicuous element in the context of the distinctive character of the conservation area. It is considered that the extension and parking area will not significantly increase the prominence of the building and will not harm the character of the conservation area. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policies S7 and HBA 6 or Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework

It is considered that the proposal will not unduly impact on the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential or other properties and will not conflict with Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan Policy DR2 or the Core planning principles contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The application site is situated within Flood Zone 3. Having regard to the applicant's flood risk assessment and the Environment Agency’s response that the proposal is a minor extension and they have no formal comment it is considered the proposal is acceptable and will not conflict with Hereford Unitary Development Plan Policy DR7 or Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

Proposed picket fencing and gate to southern boundary, fencing to NE boundary and gate rear of parking area.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

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.

The Chairman advised the Committee that Councillor Morgan could not be present at the meeting but that she had sent an email of support for the application stating that the proposed fence was in keeping with others in the locality and that it formed a sensible boundary.

In response to a question, the Head of Neighbourhood Planning advised that fences under one metre high did not need planning permission.

RESOLVED

To take into account any representations received as a result of the internal and public consultation process and, subject to there being no representations received which would require any alteration to the recommendation, 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

Reason for Approval

1.         The proposed development will look acceptable and be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.  The residential amenity of occupants of nearby dwellings will not be adversely affected.  In addition highway safety will not be adversely affected.  The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with planning policies and guidance.  In particular Policies S2, DR1, DR3 and H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Informatives

1.         The local planning authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received.  It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         N03 Adjoining property rights

Date of next site inspection:   2 April 2013

Date of next meeting:              3 April 2013