To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor ACR Chappell.

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 meeting held on 14th November, 2008.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14th November, 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

Reeves Hill Wind Turbine Planning Application

The Chairman drew attention to the special meeting of the Committee which had been arranged on 12th February to consider the planning application.

NI 157 – Determination of Planning Applications

The Head of Planning and Transportation drew attention to the following development control performance, which had considerably exceeded the Governments NI 157 targets in the determination of planning applications.  He thanked the Team leaders and their staff for their achievements :

To receive the attached report of the Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 19th November and 17th December, 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 19th November and 17th December, 2008 be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 3rd December, 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meeting held on 3rd December be received and noted.

To receive the attached report of the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee meeting held on 12th November and 10th December, 2008.

RESOLVED: That the report of the meetings held on 12th November and 10th December, 2008 be received and noted.

To consider the third review of the Council’s Local Development Scheme.

Wards Countywide

The Planning Policy Manager presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation about a suggested approach to the fourth review of the Council’s Local Development Scheme.  He said that one of the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was that Local Planning Authorities had to publish a Local Development Scheme (LDS) setting out how their forward planning work would be organised over a three-year period.  The first Scheme for Herefordshire came into effect on 1st January 2005 and had been reviewed each year and was linked in to the completion of the Annual Monitoring Report.  The LDS had been reviewed in response to a number of factors and to reflect the following :-

·               the need to roll the Scheme forward a year and include revised proposals for local development documents, taking account of advice from Government Office (GO) and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) as experience of implementing the new system is accrued;   

·               the adoption of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in March 2007, and the need to “save” those policies which will need to continue in effect until the new Local Development Framework was completed;

·               the need to address the emerging provisions in the current Phase 2 review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), notably new housing development for the period up to 2026, responding to the higher level of house building required by Government.  There is also continuing recognition in the RSS of the role of Hereford as a “settlement of significant development” (replacing the previous designation of Hereford in the RSS as one of five sub-regional foci for development);

·               the need to take forward the partnership for growth with Government set out in the identification of Hereford as a ‘New Growth Point’, by addressing the delivery of housing growth in and around the City.  The levels of growth will be confirmed through the current RSS review process;  

·               changes brought about by the revised Local Development Regulations (in June 2008) and the new Planning Act 2008 (in November 2008) especially with regard to the revised status of Supplementary Planning Guidance (which no longer forms part of the Local Development Scheme), the potential introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy and new statutory requirements regarding good design and policies to combat climate change;

·               the increased emphasis being placed by GO and PINS on the development of a “sound” evidence base to underpin the LDF.  Considerable work is underway across a range of topics in this regard, and this must be completed or progressed to certain stages in order to support the development of various LDF policy documents.  

The revised LDS included the following main amendments :-

·               provision for just three Development Plan Documents: the Core Strategy, a Hereford Area Plan and a Market Towns and Rural Areas Plan;

·               the Core Strategy is moving forward following the “Developing Options” consultation in the summer of 2008, with a view to preparing the submission document during 2009/10. Its timetable has had to be revised to take account of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

For:      Mr K Jones per Brian Griffin P&CC Ltd, The Cottage, Green Bottom, Littledean, Gloucester, GL14 3LH

To consider an application which has been referred to the Committee because the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to approve it contrary to recommendation. 

Ward: Pontrilas

The Southern Team Leader presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.  He said that at its meeting on 24th September, 2008, the Southern Area Planning Sub Committee was mindful to approve the application contrary to Council policy and officer advice.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that the six dwellings proposed in the application were needed in the area and that local need

could be met through a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure affordability in perpetuity, allocation to local people and an appropriate standard of accommodation provided.  He reported that the applicant had submitted a further statement which largely reiterated the case put forward within the Committee report. The key points raised were as follows:-

-          flexibility is required relating to the issue of “affordability” otherwise schemes will not come to fruition;

-          there is little difference between the 40% discount on offer and the value derived from the use of the Councils average earnings methodology;

-          40% discount has been accepted on other sites in Herefordshire;

-          UDP policies do not specify the actual methodology for calculating affordability;

-          the Sub-Committee considered that landscape and sustainability issues are acceptable;

-          the Parish Council and majority of local people support the scheme;

-          PPS3-Housing offers support for this type of housing; and

-          S106 Agreement would ensure discounted value would remain in the future.

The view of the officers was that in order for the application to meet the affordability test, all six dwellings must accord with the Councils adopted policy based upon average earnings. The applicant acknowledged that this was not the case but maintained that a flexible approach was required in order to promote the supply of affordable housing in rural areas.  Notwithstanding that, there had been much discussion about the extent of the discount required to achieve a level of affordability that accorded with Council policy. It was stressed that there remained a fundamental policy objection to the application because Orcop was not a defined settlement and as such Policy H10 only allowed for the construction of a single affordable dwelling. There also remained strong concerns regarding the landscape impact of the scheme and the unsustainable location of the site having regard to access to local services and public transport.

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

Councillor RH Smith, a local Ward Member, noted the reasons for refusal outlined in the report. He felt that despite the housing needs survey having identified a need in the area, the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan left no scope for the provision of new housing in Orcop whether it was discounted or not.  He said that there was still a need for seven affordable dwellings there.  He also questioned the concerns raised about the visual impact of housing on the area.  The site was brownfield and set below the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

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. 

For:      Tesco Stores Limited per DPP LLP, 14 Windsor Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BY

Ward: Belmont

The Central Team Leader presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation.  He said that at its meeting on 5th November, 2008, the Central Area Planning Sub Committee had been mindful to refuse the application contrary to Council policy and officer advice.  The Sub-Committee was concerned at the failure of the company to maintain the noise barrier and leylandii screen along the boundary, that the noise barrier was inadequate and there was pollution from vehicle engine fumes.  There had been a discussion about the extent of any previous complaints and to whom they were addressed.  A number of suggestions had been proposed including a further trial period with additional conditions requiring further noise and attenuation work.  The Sub-Committee was of the view however that the result of the trial period was that the operation of the business on a Sunday was not acceptable. He informed the Committee that the Sub-Committee had been advised that the only record of complaint was during the planning application process and not through the trial period.  A noise assessment had been considered by the Environmental Protection Manager who had concluded that subject to control over the hours of work there was no objection to the proposal.  The Central Team Leader was of the view that if the applicants lodged an appeal, it would be difficult for the Council to defend a refusal.  He suggested that the following alterations to the proposed conditions attached to an approval of the application would help to overcome the concerns that had been raised by the Sub-Committee and the Local Ward Members :-

delete recommended condition 1;

insert the following conditions: -

1. No machinery shall be operated or delivery vehicles loaded in association with the dot.com deliveries before 0700 hours or after 2300 hours on weekdays and Saturdays or outside the hours of 1000 hours – 1630 hours on a Sunday or at any time on a Bank and Public Holiday.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the area and to comply with Policy DR2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

2. On a Sunday no dot.com delivery vehicles shall leave or enter the premises outside the hours of 1100 hours – 1600 hours.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the area and to comply with Policy DR2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

3. All access to the dot.com services area on Sundays shall be via Abbotsmead Road access which shall not be open until 1100 hours and thereafter shall be kept closed at all times other than to allow the immediate entry and exit of delivery vehicles and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of the area and to comply with Policy DR2 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Add the following Informative Note.

2. For the avoidance of doubt the term dot.com delivery service refers to the internet home.

Councillor PJ Edwards, one of the Local Ward Members, said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

For:      Dr. G. & K. Swinburne per Gibson Associates, Bank House, Bank Crescent, Ledbury, Herefordshire, HR8 1AA

To consider an application which has been referred to the Committee because it is from a Member of the Council.

Ward:  Hope End

The Northern Team Leader presented the report of the Head of Planning and Transportation on an application for the subdivision of a five-bedroomed dwelling at Stanley Hill Court into a two-bedroomed dwelling and a three-bedroomed dwelling.  He advised that no representations had been received from the local parish council and that although the observations of the highways department had not yet been received, the same conditions were proposed as for the previous permission for the five-bedroomed house.  Councillor RV Stockton, one of the Local Ward Members, recommended that the application should be approved, feeling that the proposal would enable a more sensible housing provision on the site.  The Committee was in agreement.

RESOLVED THAT

1)      The Legal Practice Manager be authorised to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended in this report and any additional matters and terms as he considers appropriate.

2)      Upon completion of aforementioned planning obligation that the officers names in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1       A01 (Time limits for commencement (full permission))

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2       Non Standard (Non Standard Condition )

           Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls, garages, building, extension or dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be erected or constructed.

         Reason: In order to define the terms of the permission and in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

3       H08 (Access Closure)

         Reason: To ensure the safe and free flow of traffic using the adjoining County highway.

4       H03 (Visibility Splays) – (C1152)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5       H03 (Visibility Splays) – (B4214)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6       H05 (Access Gates)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6           H13 (Access, Turning Area and Parking)

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

8      Non Standard (Non Standard Condition)

         No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

        Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

9      Non Standard (Non Standard Condition)

          No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Special Meeting on THURSDAY 12 February 2009 for Reeves Hill wind Turbine application;

20 February 2009

3 April 2009

15 May 2009

14/02/09; 20/02/09 and 03/04/09.