To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor RI Matthews.

To receive details any details of Members 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 PJ Edwards was a substitute member for Councillor RI Matthews.

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

None.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2009.

RESOLVED:      That the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman advised that this was the first meeting of the Planning Committee following amendments to the Council’s Constitution and he explained consequential revisions to the room layout, seating plan and arrangements for the relevant local ward member(s) to address the committee.

The committee was also advised about arrangements for the ‘Shaping Our Place 2026 Consultation’ taking place between 18 January and 12 March 2010.

To be noted.

The Committee received an information report.

RESOLVED:      That the report be noted.

To receive the attached report of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meetings held in November and December 2009.

RESOLVED:      That the report of the meetings of the Area Planning Sub-Committee meetings held in November and December 2009 be received and noted.

[Note: For the efficient transaction of business at the meeting, agenda item 10 was considered before agenda item 8 and agenda item 17 was considered before agenda item 11.  However, the original agenda order has been retained in the minutes below for ease of reference]

Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

Ward - Burghill, Holmer and Lyde

Construction of new detached two storey house with additional single storey ground floor accommodation, provision of new private vehicle access drive.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A letter of objection had been received from Mr. A. Davies and Miss C. Lloyd.  The contents of the letter were summarised.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               ‘Levante’ has a window in its southern flank which overlooks 3 Belle Bank Avenue. Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the new dwelling will be closer to the boundary, it is not considered that the proposed development will result in a demonstrable degree of overlooking on the ground floor window.

§               It is not considered that the proposed development will give rise to a loss of light, as 3 Belle Bank Avenue lies south of the application site.

§               Any future development of 3 Belle Bank Avenue would be determined on its merits and the mere presence of the new dwelling would not in itself prohibit any extension, but it would be a material consideration.

§               Property values are not a material planning consideration.

§               Conditions are recommended to secure the retention of the existing landscaping.

§               Consideration of the relationship between the proposed development and all of the surrounding neighbours including the potential affect on existing levels of amenity and privacy has been addressed in the committee report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Miss. Lloyd and Mr. Pontin spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor SJ Robertson, the local ward member, expressed a number of concerns about the proposal, including:

·         Holmer Parish Council were unable to attend the meeting but had asked for attention to be drawn to their strong objections.

·         Belle Bank Avenue was of a unique design and a fine example of 1950s architecture and should be protected.

·         The proposal represented an over intensive form of development which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

·         The views of the speakers and others in the community should not be dismissed.

·         Too many gardens were being lost to infill development and comments made by a Shadow Cabinet Minister about the impact of ‘garden grabbing’ were outlined.

·         Councillor Robertson expressed surprise that the Traffic Manager had no objections given the problems with parking and congestion in the locality.

A number of Members expressed concerns about the application, including:

w        The need to preserve the heritage of the area and to maintain the environment and quality of life for local residents.

w        The potential impact of the development on the character of the area.

w        Problems with on street parking.

w        The position and scale of the proposed dwelling was considered cramped.

w        The potential for setting a precedent.

Given the potential impact of the development on neighbouring dwellings and on the character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Outline planning application for construction of a three bedroom dwelling.

Ward - Pontrilas

Outline planning application for construction of a three bedroom dwelling.

The Principal Planning gave a presentation on the application. Updates received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

• A letter of objection had been received from Mrs West and a letter of support had been received from Mr Whistance. The contents of the letters were summarised.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

• The workshop referred to in the Committee report was approved on 23 December 2009 by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee. The site for the workshop is approximately one kilometre away from the application site. No new issues are raised. The refusals referred to above relate to the adjoining site which is between the application site and the C1234 road.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Macrae spoke in objection to the application and Mr Heath, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor RH Smith, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

·         An application for the applicant’s workshop had been approved by the Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee.

·         The applicant would like to live nearer to his workshop but could not live on the workshop site as this land was owned by his grandfather.

·         Under paragraph 1.3 of the report it was stated that the applicant had a ‘desire’ to live in the proposed location, the application was submitted as the applicant needed to live near the workshop.

·         Garway Parish Council had not responded as the site did not fall within the Parish Council Boundary.

·         The applicant offered a local service to agricultural workers and employed one other person.

·         The applicant’s business had been growing for the previous 3 years. This had been evidenced through the submission of the applicant’s accounts.

·         The applicant and his fiancée had previously lived in Brilley but had deemed this too far away from the workshop to be an acceptable housing solution.

·         The application was in accordance with H7.1, H7.2, H8.1 and H8.2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The application site was associated with the small settlement of Garway and was walking distance away from the workshop.

·         The proposed dwelling would be in keeping with policies H8.3 and H8.4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The applicant was happy for an agricultural tie to be added as a condition of any approval, he was also happy to have any permission restricted to a bungalow if the committee so required.

·         Approval of the application would be in accordance with Policy S6 of the UDP as it would reduce the applicant’s need to travel to his place of work.

• The application should be approved in accordance with policies H7 and H8 of the Herefordshire Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that PPS7 did not state that a dwelling could be permitted now that the workshop had been approved and that both the financial test and the functional need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

On farm anaerobic digester to generate renewable energy.

Ward - Backbury

On farm anaerobic digester to generate renewable energy.

The Principal Planning Officer Minerals and Waste gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A letter of objection had been received from Madeleine Townson of The Lawns, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, HR1 4JY.  The contents of the letter were summarised.

§               A letter had been received from the applicant’s agent which sought to respond to local concerns. The contents of the letter were summarised.

§               Amendments were made to paragraph 6.20 of the report, to include reference to other crops and to read ‘It should be noted that the feedstock would be exclusively generated within the farm holding’.

An officer comment was provided as follows:

§               No new issues are raised, and these points have been addressed in the committee report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Knipe spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Morphy spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JE Pemberton, the local ward member, acknowledged the views of the speakers and paid tribute to the content and quality of the officer’s report.  Key elements of the report were highlighted, including:

·         There was no recorded planning history on the site.

·         There were no objections from statutory or internal council consultees.

·         Hampton Bishop Parish Council supported the proposal.

·         The proposal would minimise the release of methane gas and odorous compounds into the atmosphere.

·         The chosen site was close to existing farm buildings and other infrastructure on an area of unused derelict ground and no other properties were visible from the application site.

·         Small scale plants of this type were not comparable with large municipal sewage treatment works.

·         The Environment Agency would regulate the entire process and had enforcement powers to intervene if the site were not up to standard.

·         The applicant’s proposed to set up a complaints system and site diary and, on this basis, officers accepted that air quality would be adequately monitored and protected in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan policies.

·         The application explained that a minimal amount of gas would be held at any one time and site management, including safety, would fall within the scope of the Environmental Permit.

·         Measures to mitigate light and noise impact were noted.

·         The reduction in the number of HGV movements was welcomed; Councillor Pemberton commented on the damage caused by large farm vehicles to the margins of roadside banks.

·         Offices were satisfied that flood risk factors had been adequately addressed by the application.

·         The site was currently used for the storage of vehicles, scrap metal and other equipment; Councillor Pemberton suggested that these items should be cleared as part of any planning permission granted.

·         An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey had been undertaken and the findings accepted by both Natural England and the Conservation Officer.

Councillor Pemberton advised that the Chairman of the Parish Council had held  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Proposed detached bungalow and garage to rear of 28 Manor Road.

Ward - St Martins and Hinton

Proposed detached bungalow and garage to rear of 28 Manor Road.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Beddoes, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor ACR Chappell, one of the local ward members, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

• He supported the application.
• The application site was situated in a very large garden with a number of large out houses that had previously housed a business.
• There were no issues of overlooking.
• He had concerns in respect of the Environment Agency’s flood assessment as in his opinion Manor Road was extremely unlikely to suffer from floods.

Councillor AT Oliver, the other local ward member also raised a number of points, including:

• The site was parallel to Ministry of Defence land.
• The application site would be accessed from the side of 28 Manor Road, through the front garden of the existing property.
• Loss of amenity to the owners of 28 Manor Road.
• A bungalow on the site would be acceptable, concerns were expressed in respect of a dormer bungalow or house.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission) (12 months)

2          B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

3          C01 Samples of external materials

4          F14 Removal of permitted development rights

5          G09 Details of boundary treatments

6          G10 Landscaping scheme

7          G11 Landscaping scheme – implementation

8          H06 Vehicular access construction

9          H13 Access, turning area and parking

10        I16 Restriction of hours during construction

11        L01 Foul/surface water drainage

12        L02 No surface water to connect to public system

13        L03 No drainage run-off to public system

14        M06 Finished floor levels

Informatives:

1          HN01 Mud on highway

2          HN05 Works within the highway

3          HN10 No drainage to discharge to highway

4          N03 Adjoining property rights

5          N14 Party Wall Act 1996

6          N19 Avoidance of doubt - Approved Plans

7          N15 Reason(s) for the Grant of Planning Permission

Proposed single storey two bed dwelling.

Ward - Central

Proposed single storey two bed dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               The Conservation Manager had advised that ‘Although the design is contemporary it would have minimal impact on the character of the area due to its location and single storey design.  There will therefore be no detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area.’

Some Members questioned the architectural style proposed, particularly given the impact of the development on the outlook from neighbouring properties, and concerns were expressed about the layout and limited amenity space.  However, other Members noted that the applicant’s agent had comprehensively redesigned the scheme following a previous refusal of planning permission for a two storey dwelling (DCCE0009/1380/F refers) and considered the new proposal to be an acceptable form of development.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Erection of free standing timber deck to front of public house, deck to include ambulant stepped access. Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

Ward - Hagley

Erection of free standing timber deck to front of public house, deck to include ambulant stepped access.Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. Updates received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

·         The Traffic Manager commented that the decking resulted in the loss of some parking area but that adequate parking remained to serve the public house

·         One letter of support had been received from Geoffrey Watts of Hagley House, Bartestree commenting that the decked area was well constructed, had caused no nuisance and provided a valuable asset to the public house.

• Copies of a further ten letters of support sent to Councillor Greenow had also recently been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Brunt, a local resident, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

·         The satellite dish referred to in the application had not been erected by the applicant and they would be happy to move it to a less visibly intrusive location on the premises as requested by the Parish Council.

·         52 public houses had closed each week in 2009, up from 39 per week in 2008.

·         Licensees had to diversify to attract new trade, hence the application for the new decking at the New Inn.

·         The decking would give families the opportunity to sit outside and supervise children playing in the outside play area.

·         The decking had been constructed at the same level as the public house interior floor to allow staff to deliver food and drinks to patrons using the decking salfely and conveniently.

·         The decking had trebled the income for the public house over a difficult period.

·         Without the decking there was a real possibility that the New Inn would close, the decking had been key to attracting families to the public house.

·         The application was in keeping with section 9.6.9 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan as the character of the building had not been affected by the decking as it was not attached to the original building.

·         The UDP also stated under 7.6.2 that ‘public houses perform a vital economic and social function and should be retained wherever possible’.

·         There had been a number of letters of support submitted to the planning department in respect of the application.

·         The decking could be stained in a natural colour to alleviate any concerns regarding visual impact.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the ramp would be removed from the decking in order to limit the visual impact of the decking. Members were concerned that the removal of the ramp could be contrary to DDA guidance.

The Committee was of the opinion that the current decking was contrary to planning policy and felt that issues in respect of landscaping, colour and disabled access had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Change of use to allow for the erection of a marquee up to 12 times a year for functions primarily for wedding receptions.

Ward - Castle

Change of use to allow for the erection of a marquee up to 12 times a year for functions primarily for wedding receptions.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Further letters of objection had been received from Mr. and Mrs. B. Whittle, 2 New House Farm.  The contents of the letters were summarised.

§               Letters in support of the application had been received from: Burgoynes (Lyonshall), Lyonshall, Kington; A2Zest Events, 10 Prior Street, Hereford; and E.C Williams, The Bower, Eardisley.  The contents of the letters were summarised.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The local concern regarding the technical capability of using limiters has been noted.  The Environmental Health Officer has made this recommendation.  This is not an unusual solution/requirement.  The methods will need to be agreed with the local planning authority prior to the next use of a marquee on the site.

§               The request for mediation is noted but the application is already recommended for a temporary approval.  The officer would be happy to meet with all parties concerned during the temporary period to discuss options and concerns if the applicant is agreeable.

§               A condition was recommended in relation to functions being separated by at least 14 days, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Glyn-Jones spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Spreckley spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Hope MBE, the local ward member, commented on the following issues:

·         The need for a change of use was queried given that events could occur on agricultural land for up to 28 days per year; the Principal Planning Officer clarified that such permitted development rights only applied to areas outside residential curtilage.

·         The conclusions in paragraph 6.8 of the report were supported.

A Member noted that there was a proliferation of this type of activity in the County and it could cause significant distress to nearby residents.  However, it was felt that the benefits to the local economy also had to be considered and that the application was acceptable subject to strict observance of the conditions by the applicants, particularly in respect of event frequency and timings.  Other Members also spoke in support of the application.

A view was expressed that the position of the marquee should be moved away from the nearest neighbour and closer to holiday lets so that the impact on permanent residents would be reduced.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that there would be limited difference in noise levels and the suggested positions were considered the most acceptable in terms of screening and relationship with the property.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that: the recommended timings were considered appropriate for the intended functions; the requirements in respect of the erection and removal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Change of use of land from agricultural to mixed agricultural and as a landing field for a light aircraft, change of use of a barn from agricultural and equipment storage to include a vintage light aircraft. (Retrospective application)

Ward - Castle

Change of use of land from agricultural to mixed agricultural and as a landing field for a light aircraft, change of use of a barn from agricultural and equipment storage to include a vintage light aircraft. (Retrospective application)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor JW Hope MBE, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and noted that none of the local residents had objected to the application.

Members discussed the application and had concerns in respect of the lack of signage on the site as well as the hours of operation in respect of winter usage. In order to address their concerns members requested that conditions be added to exclude any usage of the landing strip in the hours of darkness and also to restrict any crop spraying.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1          F26 Personal condition

2          A detailed log of all take-off and landings at the application site shall be kept and made available for inspection on reasonable request from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To enable the planning authority to monitor the use in the interests of the residential amenity of local residents having regard to policies DR1, DR2 and DR13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3          Except in emergency, the use of the airstrip shall be restricted to use by light aircraft with a maximum take off weight of 995kg and shall not be used by microlights at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason:  In order to define the terms to which the application relates.

4          The number of aircraft movements (with take off and landing counting as separate movements) from the airstrip shall not exceed 8 per week (Monday to Sunday).

Reason:  To enable the planning authority to retain control over the development in the interests of the residential amenity of local residents having regard to policies DR1, DR2 and DR13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5          Except in emergency no touch-and-go activity shall take place.

Reason:  To enable the planning authority to retain control over the development in the interests of the residential amenity of local residents having regard to policies DR1, DR2 and DR13 of the UDP.

6          The airstrip shall be grassed and shall be no more that 400m in length and 20m in width.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with the requirements of policy DR1 of the UDP.

7          There shall no be take offs or landings between the hours of 9pm and 9am daily.

Reason:  To enable the planning authority to retain control over the development in the interests of the residential amenity of local residents having regard to policies DR1, DR2 and DR13 of the UDP.

8          There shall be no parachuting, aerobatics or pilot training taking place at or operating from the site.

Reason:  To enable the planning authority to retain control over the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Removal of 3 large sheds and their replacement with a single group holiday let.

Ward - Old Gore

Removal of 3 large sheds and their replacement with a single group holiday let.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               The applicant had provided documentary evidence which demonstrated that the proposed access had the necessary authorisation. This was obtained from the Forest of Dean District Council in 2005.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Batterham spoke in support of the application.

A Member commented that considerable thought had gone into the application and supported the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES:

Proposed two dwellings.

Ward - Hampton Court

Proposed two dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Parry, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Mrs Hunt, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s constitution, Councillor KG Grumbley, the local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised a number of points, including:

·         The applicants had been offered the land by Mr Hunt’s employer.

·         The family were committed to the welfare of their son and wanted to continue to assist in his care whilst giving him the independence of his own home.

·         The applicant’s son needed to live independently to qualify for grants to assist with his care.

·         The reasons for refusal were fully understood but the application should not be refused lightly.

·         Conditions or a section 106 agreement could be utilised to ensure that the dwellings remained affordable.

·         There were concerns in respect of visibility onto Woodhouse Lane but the increase in traffic would be minimal and the Traffic Manager did not object to the application.

·         The construction phase would have to be monitored closely to ensure that the highway impact to the local residents was minimal.

Members felt that the increase in vehicle movements to the site would be minimal and noted that the Transport Officer had raised no objections. They also noted that the applicants had agreed to a section 106 agreement in order to ensure that the dwellings remained affordable in perpetuity.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no recorded accidents on the road in question for 5 years. He confirmed that the visibility splay could not be improved as the land at either side of the entrance to the site was not in the ownership of the applicants.

The Committee noted the Officer’s recommendation but on balance supported the application in principle. They had some concerns in respect of the application for a two storey dwelling as some members were of the opinion that two bungalows would be more suitable on the site. A motion to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation was seconded and a vote was taken following the local ward member’s closing statement.

Councillor KG Grumbley was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution. He made the following comments:

·         The inclusion of a section 106 agreement to address the affordable nature of the dwellings could be

·         The dwelling for Mr and Mrs Hunt’s son would remain 25% in the ownership of the charitable organisation who would be assisting in the funding.

·         There had been no accidents on the access for 5 years.

·         The construction phase could be conditioned in order to reduce any impact on the local residents.

·         Mr Hunt’s current dwelling would be surrendered when he ceased his employment as Farm Manager.

The Head of Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Locum Lawyer, noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form livework unit.

Ward - Ledbury

Proposed conversion of redundant mill to form livework unit.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               Correspondence had been received from Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Trust.  The contents of the correspondence were summarised.  It was reported that the Canal Trust had attempted to negotiate with the landowner without success in respect of the land in the vicinity of the canal.

§               Further representations had been submitted by the agent for the applicant with regard to the flooding issue.  This suggested that the historic flood level was 1.45 metres lower than the floor level of the building.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               The safeguarded route of the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal crosses the application site (bi-sects the driveway) and traverses adjoining land within the applicant’s control.

§               Under the provisions of policy RST 9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 the Local Planning Authority would normally require the applicant to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement securing the transfer of the land the subject of the safeguarded canal corridor to the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal at no cost and in this instance to commit to a single access and bridge across the restored canal in the vicinity of Hazle Mill to be shared with the owners of Hazle Mill House.

§               The agent for the applicant has not submitted any form of draft heads of terms in respect of a legal agreement to address this issue.  As such the proposal is also contrary to policy RST 9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and a further ground of refusal is recommended.

§               With regard the flooding issue, the agent has not undertaken any modelling and relies on anecdotal evidence from the applicant. To require full modelling in such a small-scale case may be rather excessive and as no new built development (additional footprint) is proposed there would be no impact on flood storage or flood flows. However, the agent for the applicant has still not overcome the sequential test. The site remains in Flood Zone 2 (Medium Risk) and he has failed to provide any evidence that there are no suitable alternative sites entirely in Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk).

§               As a matter of clarification I understand that the building upon the site has no remnants of the original Mill and that the timbers within it were inserted by a person who operated a scrap yard business upon the site in the late twentieth century.

§               With regard the recently revised Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Growth’, there is no mention within that document of “live-work” units. Furthermore with regard the re-use of rural buildings to employment related purposes the advice remains the same. Whilst the Government continue to encourage the re-use of rural buildings for employment related purposes they advise Local Planning Authorities to adopt criteria  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Provisional Site Inspection Date - 23 February 2010

Next Meetings of the Planning Committee - 24 February 2010 and 17 March 2010

24 February 2010 and 17 March 2010.