Apologies were received from Councillors MAF Hubbard, RI Matthews, RL Mayo and TL Widdows.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.1.23 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor ACR Chappell attended the meeting as a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews and Councillor JLV Kenyon substituted for Councillor MAF Hubbard.

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

Agenda item 6 – 143500 Twin Kilns, Yarkhill Court Barns, Watery Lane, Yarkhill

Councillor DB Wilcox declared a non-pecuniary interest because he knew the applicant socially.

Proposed removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DCNC2004/2013/F (Conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to allow fodder store to be used as a dwelling.

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

(Proposed removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DCNC2004/2013/F (Conversion of cottage annexe to provide one bedroom holiday cottage) to all fodder store to be used as a dwelling.)

The Case Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He noted that determination of the application had been deferred by the Committee on 21 January and an updated report had been prepared.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs Williams, Chairman of Whitbourne Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr P Woods, owner of The Old Rectory, spoke in objection.  Mr P Smith, the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor GR Swinford, spoke on the application.

He gave a detailed analysis of the issues, referring to a Counsel’s opinion submitted by Mr R Humphreys QC on behalf of the owner of The Old Rectory.

He noted that the Fodder Store had been incorporated into the Old Rectory when the rectory was built in 1770.  For the next 234 years the building had been a residential annex and had only been a holiday let for 9 years.

 In summary he advanced the following principal policy grounds for refusing the application:

·         The application was contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, which prohibited development in the open Countryside.  Another constituent had recently received pre-application advice relating to a proposed new dwelling ¼ of a mile from the centre of Whitbourne village that the location was unsustainable being in open countryside.  Consistency in determining planning applications was important.

·         He highlighted the concerns of the Conservation Manager (Historic Buildings) in relation to works that had been carried out without Listed Building Consent.  He suggested that whatever decision the Committee reached enforcement action would have to be taken which could potentially mean a new dwelling being created with no amenity space, no heating system and no access to its own cellar.

·         The application was contrary to policies H17 and H18 which stated that there had to be, a satisfactory standard of accommodation including layout and private amenity space.  In 2010 when permission had been given for change of use of the annex from holiday let to residential use the decision notice had stated that it would be contrary to policy H18 to grant planning permission for a new dwelling in that location.

·         The proposal was contrary to policies HBA3 and HBA4 because it would adversely affect the setting of the Old Rectory and severely affect the residential amenity of its occupiers.

·         The residential annex permissions in 2010 and 2013 had been implemented. The Committee could not therefore remove condition 4 of the 2004 holiday let permission because that permission had been superseded.

In conclusion he requested that the Committee refuse the application and expressed the hope  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

Proposed construction of 7 no.Passivhaus standard dwellings, associated car parking and landscaping.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with an amended condition..

(Proposed construction of 7 no.Passivhaus standard dwellings, associated car parking and landscaping.)

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, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Ms J Gough, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Mr D Benbow, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

The Parish Council supported the proposal.

The development was sustainable, with the provision of Passivhaus dwellings a further point in favour of the scheme’s sustainability.  In accordance with the NPPF the development should be approved.

The development was outside the settlement boundary.

There was no community benefit associated with the Scheme.   In response to this point, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that legislation provided that Section 106 agreements could not be sought for developments of fewer than 10 dwellings and under 1,000sq metres.  The development would constitute no harm to highway safety. The developer had indicated a willingness to make a contribution towards signage within the village.  A Member suggested that an Informative be added to reflect this offer.

The Development Manager commented that Policy RA2 in the emerging Core Strategy identified Gorsley as a village that could accommodate proportionate housing growth. The Transportation Manager had no objections to the application. The development should be supported having regard to the requirements of the NPPF and the lack of a five year housing land supply. An informative could be added in relation to the developer’s offer to contribute towards signage.

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

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

2.         The recommendations set out in Section 4 of the ecologist’s report from Clark Webb dated September 2014 shall be followed in relation to habitat enhancement.  Prior to commencement of the development, a habitat enhancement plan integrated with the landscape proposals should be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority, and the work shall be implemented as approved.

            Reasons:

            a) To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

            b) To comply with Policies NC8 and NC9 of Herefordshire’s Unitary Development Plan in relation to Nature Conservation and Biodiversity and to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the NERC Act 2006.

3.         An appropriately qualified and experienced ecological clerk of works shall be appointed (or consultant engaged in that capacity) to oversee the ecological mitigation work.

            Reasons:

            a) To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and Policies NC1, NC6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

            b)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Proposed sun room extension.

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

(Proposed sun room extension.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Angell, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor PM Morgan spoke on the application.

She noted that polices HBA12 and HBA 13 permitted conversion schemes with a view to protecting redundant agricultural buildings.  The conversion of Twin Kilns had been carried out well and was one of a number conversions in that development.  It could be argued that the proposal was in conflict to a degree with policy.  However, she suggested it was a subjective judgment as to whether, with reference to paragraph 6.13 of the report, the scheme would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the building.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·         Some Members considered that the proposal would not detract from the building.  Rather, the scheme proposed was of good quality and would contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the building.

·         Other Members considered the development was an extension, not in keeping with the character of the building, and contrary to policy as officers had concluded in the report.

·         In accordance with policy such a proposal should only be permitted if it was of exceptional design and/or architectural quality.

·         Granting permission would set a precedent for other conversion schemes.

·         The Parish Council had raised no objection.

·         It was disappointing that the applicant had not sought pre-submission advice.

The Development Manager commented that conversions are seen as finite and that policy precludes extensions although appeals have allowed additions where the design is truly outstanding.    In this particular case the applicant had proposed a traditional design rather than a contemporary approach.  Accordingly as advised the proposal was contrary to policy.

The local ward member had no additional comment.

RESOLVED: that officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions considered necessary on the grounds that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the building

Date of next meeting – 16 March 2015