To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors CJ Davis, DJ Fleet,
JGS Guthrie, Mrs JA Hyde, RM Manning and Mrs PG Turpin.

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

The following named substitutes were appointed;-

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

Councillor R Preece declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda item 11 (Dcce2006/2037/F - construction of new flood defence walls and embankments together with strengthening of existing walls between Greyfriars Bridge & Wyelands Close. Provision of access over new flood defence at Queen Eelizabeth Avenue, St Martins Avenue & Hinton Road. Belmont, St Martins & Hinton road, Hereford) and left  the meeting for the duration of this item.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 25th August, 2006.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25th August, 2006 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman referred to the recent illness of Councillor PG Turpin and said that a card would be sent on behalf of Members and Officers with their best wishes and hoping that he makes a speedy recovery.

The Chairman said that a Seminar had been arranged for all Members on 13th November in respect of Section 106 obligations.

To receive the attached report of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 13^th September, 2006.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 13th September, 2006 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 23^rd August, 2006.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 23rd August, 2006 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 30^th August, 2006.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 30th August, 2006 be received and noted.

The Committee considered the following planning applications and authorised the Head of Planning Services to impose any additional or varied conditions and reasons which he considered to be necessary.

The Committee considered the following planning applications and authorised the Head of Planning Services to impose any additional or varied conditions and reasons which he considered to be necessary.

For:     Mr M Thomas, Landmark, 8 Talbot Square, Cleobury Mortimer, Herefordshire, DY14 8BQ

To consider an application which is partly on Council owned land.  The item was deferred at the previous meeting for a site inspection.

Ward: Leominster South

The Development Control Manager said that the applicant was agreeable to all the conditions set out in the proposed planning obligation agreement, including compensation to the Council for the loss of income from car parking spaces that would be used in the scheme. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Jones the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. 

Councillor JPS Thomas, one of the Local Ward Members, felt that the site inspection had clarified a number of issues regarding the application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to:

1.         The Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to (set out heads of agreement) and any additional matters and terms as he considers appropriate.

2.         Upon completion of the afore mentioned planning obligation that the Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers 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 -     A07 (Development in accordance with approved plans )

         Reason: To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development.

3 -     B01 (Samples of external materials )

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

4 -     F16 (Restriction of hours during construction )

         Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

5 -     No materials or substances shall be incinerated within the application site during the construction phase.

         Reason:  To protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

6 -     Prior to the construction of any re-development on site details will be submitted to and approved in writing of additional noise insulation to the bedrooms of units 1, 2 and 3.

         Reason:  In order to protect the amenity of residents of these dwellings within close proximity to a licensed premises/pool hall.

7 -     Prior to development on site details will be submitted and approved in writing of the shops front design and the glazed units as indicated on the approved plans.

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding Conservation Area.

8 -     Prior to development on site details will be submitted and approved in writing of treatment of the boundary walls.

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.

9 -     No meter boxes will be sited on public facing elevations.

         Reason:  In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding Conservation Area.

10 -      C04 (Details of window sections, eaves, verges and barge boards )

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.

11 -      C05 (Details of external joinery finishes )

         Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.

12 -      C10 (Details of rooflights )

         Reason: To ensure the rooflights do not break the plane  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider an application which involves Council owned land. 

Ward: St Martins and Hinton

The Principal Planning Officer said that the application was in respect of works required to protect the Greyfriars, Belmont, St Martin’s and Lower Bullingham areas from frequent flood events.  He said that studies had revealed that there was a 20% chance that these areas could be flooded in any one year with the danger of substantial damage to residential and commercial properties, considerable disruption to the local highway network and an adverse economic effect on local businesses.  The scheme was designed to provide a one in two hundred-year level of protection against flooding.  He reported on the following updates which had been received since the report had been produced:-

• a further letter of objection but which did not raise any new material issues

·         Sport England - the pitch layout had been re-configured so as there was no net loss of pitches.  Sport England had maintained their objection because the earth embankment took up land that could form a pitch (or part of) at some stage in the future.  They maintained their request for a replacement pitch elsewhere or a contribution to enable the creation of a pitch elsewhere in the future.  The alternative option to the embankment in order to retain the playing field was a 3 metre high wall along the edge of the footpath, which was not environmentally or economically viable

·         Fire Service - the proposed vehicular access ramp off Wye Street was likely to enable access for the fire service with a 4X4 and trailer carrying a boat but this was still being clarified through computer vehicle tracking.

·         Conservation Officer - the scheme could be amended to create an improved transition between Wye Bridge, the railings and wall

·         Sustainable Transport Officer - requests such as dropped kerbs for cyclist and delineation of cycleway off Wye Street could be accommodated within the scheme.

·         Landscape Officer

·                     an arboriculturalist will supervise the works

·                     the replacement of the wall adjacent Wyelands with an embankment             would require a 2.5M high embankment rather than 600 mm high wall

·                     only trees that are directly impacted by the works are to be removed.

·                     replacement planting is to be carried out at a ratio of 10 replacements             for each tree removed.

·                     the following potential enhancements are proposed in addition to             supplementary tree planting:-

·                     interpretation boards to be provided.

·                     public art to be incorporated into the scheme.

·                     wild flower meadows within dog walking area along Hinton Road.

·                     surface area around tennis court kiosk to be enhanced.

·                     enhanced lighting

·                     enhanced surface treatment to St Martins Avenue.

·                     enhancement of access into King Georges Field from Hinton Road.

·                     restructuring of the south east access into King Georges Field from Hinton Road.

Environment Agency response to suggested amendments

The retention of the hedge along Hinton Road would:

•  be a barrier to inspection of the flood defence wall.  Any signs of cracking or movement of the wall must be seen and not hidden so that actions can be taken as soon as possible to enable the integrity of the flood defences to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

To consider an application which has been referred to the Committee because the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse it, contrary to the Council’s Planning policies and Officer advice.

Ward: St Martins and Hinton

The Development Control Manager said that the application was considered by the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee at its meeting on 23rd August 2006 when it was mindful to refuse permission contrary to recommendation and Officer advice.  During the debate the Sub-Committee gave significant weight to the objections of local Members and local residents who were very concerned that, having got planning permission for one house type on this plot, the developer had proceeded to build a larger house type similar to those on the adjoining two plots. Members were also concerned at the impact on the outlook of the nearest householders on Redhill Avenue, who had a row of three storey houses at the rear of their properties instead of two three storey and one two storey dwelling. Members also considered the impact of the development on the street scene, which they felt would be made significantly worse by the change in house type.  

The Committee considered the planning merits of the application and noted that two identical house types had been approved on the adjacent plots, making it difficult to argue that the three storey house type was in appropriate in this situation. The change of house type did have an effect on the street scene but this was not considered sufficiently detrimental to justify refusal of permission.  The Committee did however share the concerns raised by the Sub-Committee and the Local Ward Members, particularly as the developers had been advised of the breach of planning permission at an early stage.  Although the developers had submitted an application for retrospective consent, they had continued with the work although asked to cease.  It was felt that consent could not realistically be withheld, but that a strongly worded letter should be sent to the developers 

RESOLVED

that the application be approved and that the Head of Planning services send a strongly worded letter to the applicants, in consultation with the Chairman.

To note the following meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year:-

24th November, 2006

19th January, 2007

2nd March, 2007

20th April, 2007