To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors ACR Chappell and PM Morgan.

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

Councillor WU Attfield was appointed named substitute for Councillor ACR Chappell.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 12th February,
20th February and 13th March, 2009.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12th February, 20th February and 13th March, 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following:-

12th February 2009 - Minute 86 page 8 - replace ‘Mr S Goulay’ with ‘Sir Simon Gourlay’.

13th March, 2009 – page 31 Resolution 8(i) - replace ‘the erection of litter-proof fencing if and when necessary’ with ‘the erection of a permanent litter-proof fence around the site, to be of sufficient height on the side of the site facing St Donats’

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

To receive the attached report of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 11th March 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 11th March, 2009 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 4th March 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 4th March, 2009 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 18th February 2009 and 18th March 2009.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 18th February and 18th March, 2009 be received and noted.

To provide an update to the Committee about the planning application.

Ward – Mortimer

The Head of Planning and Transportation presented his report which updated the Committee about developments regarding the planning application which was considered at a special meeting held on 12th February, 2009. At that time the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had issued an Article 14 Direction which prevented the Council from being able to grant planning permission for the proposal.  He said that the Secretary of State had recently withdrawn the Article 14 Direction and had decided that the application should be determined by the Council.  In her letter to the Council, the Secretary of State had recognised the importance of the jurisdiction of Local Planning Authorities.  She had also recognised that the Committee had given considerable consideration to the application in relation to national Planning Policy Statements PPS 1, PPS 7 and PPS 22 regarding sustainable development and renewable energy.

On the basis of the letter, the Head of Planning and Transportation said that detailed work was progressing on the following areas:

a)      modifying the noise conditions in the officer report to reflect industry standards and to respond to comments made in relation to their ability to be enforced; and

b)      the conclusion of the Section 106 Agreement.

He advised that the Section 106 Agreement was more complicated than usual, given the complexity of the proposal and the need to secure the agreement of three highway authorities on the issues of abnormal load, vehicle routeing and bonds/indemnities. It was therefore likely to be several months before all the issues had been addressed.

In answer to a question from Councillor RV Stockton, the Head of Planning and Transportation said that the applicants still needed to obtain permission from Powys County Council for the access road to the site.  If an alternative route for the access needed to be found within Herefordshire, it would be the subject of a fresh planning application.

RESOLVED THAT

the report be received and noted.

For:      Mr. M. Meophytou per John Farr and Associates, Fincham, Stockley   Hill,   Peterchurch,   Hereford, HR2 0SS

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 recommendation. 

Ward: Credenhill

The Central Team Leader presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.  He said that at its meeting on 4th March, 2009, the Central Area Planning Sub Committee was mindful to refuse the application on the following grounds, contrary to Council policy and officer advice:-

1.            harm to the residential amenity of the residents in the area particularly those above and adjacent to the premises;

2.            harm the character of the area in terms of social activities outside normal business hours;

3.            increased noise and litter;

4.            emanating fumes and odours; and

5.            fear of crime.

The Central Team Leader provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

The Head of Environmental Health had provided the further comments: -

I can advise that this Service is not aware of any complaints about the extraction system at a nearby restaurant. We have however in the past dealt with noise from food preparation carried out on an unauthorised structure at the back of this restaurant, and have investigated complaints about noise from refrigeration units at a general/convenience food shop located within the shopping arcade. Although investigations did not substantiate the existence of noise nuisance from these units some noise attenuation works were done at the time to try and appease the situation. The information provided with the above application indicates that odour and noise from the proposed extraction system will be effectively controlled, however I am still seeking some clarification on the predicted noise levels.

The local Police Officer and CSO had reported that there is anti social behaviour in Credenhill that seems to focus on this area and that this may increase with a chip shop.

OFFICER COMMENTS

Taking into account the advice of the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise and odours, the view of the Officers was that the matter could be reasonably dealt with by the installation of a suitable extract ventilation system.  Condition No 4 in the recommendation of the report addressed this.

With regard to crime/anti social behaviour it was clear that this could be a material planning consideration and UDP Policy DR2 refers to this issue. There are remedies available through licensing and law enforcement.  To refuse planning permission on this ground would require clear evidence that the permission would result in law breaking routinely occurring in the vicinity, and that conditions could not be imposed that would remedy the problem.  In this case the opening hours proposed would involve a closure at 11.00 pm, which coincided with the opening hours of the adjoining shop, and a condition was recommended to cover this.  Additional recommended conditions also required a litter management plan and external lighting. Having regard to this, the Officers do not consider that a refusal of permission on this ground could be justified.

Councillor RI Matthews, the Local Ward Member said that a chip shop in a shopping area might appear acceptable but that with the full facts, he felt unable to support the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

15th May, 2009

15th May, 2009.